| December 17, 1997 NH Supreme Court Claremont II Decision | Page 63 |
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk/Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Supreme Court Building, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.state.nh.us/courts/supreme.htm
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Merrimack
No. 97-001
CLAREMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT & a.
v.
GOVERNOR & a.
December 17, 1997
Stein, Volinsky & Callaghan, P.A., of Concord (Andru H. Volinsky & a. on the briefs, and Mr. Volinsky orally), John E. Tobin, Jr., of Concord, on the briefs and orally, and McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, of Manchester (Wilbur A. Glahn, III on the briefs), for the plaintiffs.
Philip T. McLaughlin, attorney general (Leslie J. Ludtke, associate attorney general, and Patrick E. Donovan, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Mr. McLaughlin orally), for the State.
Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green, of Manchester (Thomas J. Flygare on the brief), for An Unnamed Unincorporated Association of Concerned New Hampshire Citizens, as amicus curiae.
Theodore E. Comstock, of Concord, and James F. Allmendinger, of Concord, on the brief, for Joint Education Council, as amicus curiae.
Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (L. Jonathan Ross on the brief), for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae.
BROCK, C.J. In this appeal we hold that the present system of financing elementary and secondary public education in New Hampshire is unconstitutional. To hold otherwise would be to effectively conclude that it is reasonable, in discharging a State obligation, to tax property owners in one town or city as much as four times the amount taxed to others similarly situated in other towns or cities. This is precisely the kind of taxation and fiscal mischief from which the framers of our State Constitution took strong steps to protect our citizens. The procedural history of the case and the reasons for our decision follow.
 |
Back | Next |  |