The task for the Superior Court was to review the evidence presented by the school districts and the state, apply the language of the NH Supreme Court's 1993 Claremont I Decision and the New Hampshire Constitution to the evidence and determine whether the state was fulfilling its duty to the state's school children

The New Hampshire Supreme Court in its 1993 Claremont I decision ruled that "We hold that part II, article 83 imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in the public schools in New Hampshire and to guarantee adequate funding."

There were four Counts contained in the School Districts' Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief that were before the Superior Court.

In Count I, the issue was whether the Legislature and the Governor failed to spread the opportunities and advantages of education equitably and adequately among all the state's educable children.

In Count II, the issue was whether the Legislature and the Governor adequately and equitably fund the public elementary and secondary schools in the state.

In Count III, the issue was whether the New Hampshire system of financing public education violated the Equal Protection guarantees of the New Hampshire Constitution. The students in the petitioner school districts are treated differently than in the comparison districts because they are not provided with an equitable level of Constitutionally adequate educational funding and the students in the comparison districts are.

In Count VI, the issue was whether the state system of school finance, which relies almost exclusively on local property tax, was in effect a state tax, which pursuant to Part 2, Art 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution must be uniform and proportional throughout the state.

The Superior Court in its 180 page decision ruled in favor of the state on each of the four Counts.

The Superior Court stated that a resolution of Count I required a three-part analysis. First, the Court had to identify a standard of "adequacy" that comported with the Claremont I decision and the New Hampshire Constitution. Second, it evaluated the delivery of educational opportunities in the petitioner school districts in light of the standard of adequacy that it adopted.

Third, the Superior Court ruled on whether the governor and legislature have violated the state Constitution by failing to spread educational opportunities equitably and adequately among all educable New Hampshire children.