Schults v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK
210 A.2d 762, 45 N.J. 2, 1965 N.J. LEXIS 154
Opinion
We agree with the Appellate Division’s determination (86 N. J. Super. 29 (1964)) that the plaintiffs should first have exhausted their administrative remedies before the Commissioner and State Board of Education. The dismissal of their complaint is:
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schults v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, 210 A.2d 762, 45 N.J. 2, 1965 N.J. LEXIS 154 (N.J. 1965).
210 A.2d 762 (Schults v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
9 A.3d 882 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Board of Education v. Board of Education v. Board of Education
608 A.2d 914 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Englewood Cliffs v. Englewood
608 A.2d 914 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
DeCamp Bus Lines v. TRANSPORTATION DEP'T
440 A.2d 32 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1981)
Silverman v. BD. OF ED., TP. OF MILLBURN
339 A.2d 233 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
Katz v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, GLOUCESTER CTY. COL.
310 A.2d 490 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1973)
Scott v. Town of Bloomfield
229 A.2d 667 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
Booker v. Board of Education of City of Plainfield
212 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1965)