Case Name: In the Matter of John W. Soergel et al., as Taxpayers of Union Free School District No. 6, Town of De Witt, Appellants, and Jack Macken et al., as Taxpayers and Members of the Board of Trustees of Union Free School District No. 6, Town of De Witt, et al., Intervening Petitioners-Appellants, v. James E. Allen, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1961-03-30
Citations: 9 N.Y.2d 825
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of John W. Soergel et al., as Taxpayers of Union Free School District No. 6, Town of De Witt, Appellants, and Jack Macken et al., as Taxpayers and Members of the Board of Trustees of Union Free School District No. 6, Town of De Witt, et al., Intervening Petitioners-Appellants, v. James E. Allen, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 825–826

Head Matter:
In the Matter of John W. Soergel et al., as Taxpayers of Union Free School District No. 6, Town of De Witt, Appellants, and Jack Macken et al., as Taxpayers and Members of the Board of Trustees of Union Free School District No. 6, Town of De Witt, et al., Intervening Petitioners-Appellants, v. James E. Allen, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent.
Submitted March 27, 1961;
decided March 30, 1961.

Opinion:
Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, as follows: Appellants contended that chapters 518 and 626 of the Laws of 1926 and article 37 of the Education Law of the State of New York, as interpreted by the Commissioner of Education and construed by the courts of this State, denied them equal protection of the laws and deprived them of their property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This court held that there was no such denial or deprivation. [See 9 N Y 2d 633.]