Case Name: THOMAS A. FRASER ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1945-04-30
Citations: 133 N.J.L. 15
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMAS A. FRASER ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 15–15

Head Matter:
THOMAS A. FRASER ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
Submitted January 16, 1945
Decided April 30, 1945.
Before Justices Case, Bobine and Porter.
For the prosecutors, Eisenberg & Spicer.
For the respondents, Robert H. Doherty.

Opinion:
The op inion of the court was delivered by
Bodine, J.
A writ was allowed in this case for the determination of two questions. 132 N. J. L. 248.
1. Do teachers in a school system, who have acquired tenure, have a right to the increases provided by an existing- salary schedule when the time for such increases occur? We think not. If the reasoning in Greenway v. Board of Education of Camden, 129 N. J. L. 461, is somewhat extended, as we think it should be, board action is necessary to implement every increase.
2. May the recommendation by the persons named in the schedule be arbitrarily withheld ? We can find nothing in the proofs beyond inaction. There is nothing to indicate that it was arbitrary. To decide otherwise it is admitted would necessitate overruling the reasoning in the Greenway case, supra. This we cannot do.
The judgment of the State Board of Education will be affirmed.