Pauley v. Kelly
Decision Date | 20 February 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 14036,14036 |
Citation | 162 W.Va. 672,255 S.E.2d 859 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Terry Gene PAULEY, etc., et al. v. John H. KELLY, Treasurer, State of West Virginia, et al. |
Syllabus by the Court
1.Syllabus Point 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., Inc., W.Va., 236 S.E.2d 207(1977)
2.The provisions of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia may, in certain instances, require higher standards of protection than afforded by the Federal Constitution.
3.The mandatory requirements of "a thorough and efficient system of free schools" found in Article XII, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution, make education a fundamental, constitutional right in this State.
4.Because education is a fundamental, constitutional right in this State, under our Equal Protection Clause any discriminatory classification found in the State's educational financing system cannot stand unless the State can demonstrate some compelling State interest to justify the unequal classification.
5.The Thorough and Efficient Clause contained in Article XII, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution requires the Legislature to develop a high quality State-wide education system.
Daniel F. Hedges, Charleston, Peter J. Nickles and Paul A. Zevnik, Covington & Burling, Richard S. Kohn and David C. Long, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., F. Layton Cottrill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellees.
Appellants are parents of five children who attend the public schools of Lincoln County.They filed this action for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on behalf of themselves and as a class action on behalf of the other students in the Lincoln County school system.Defendants are the State Treasurer and State Auditor, the members of the West Virginia State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Schools.
The Pauleys allege that our system for financing public schools violates West Virginia's Constitution by denying plaintiffs the "thorough and efficient" education required by Article XII, Section 1, and by denying them equal protection of the law.They particularly direct us to inequalities that exist in secondary education opportunity and achievement, created by markedly out-of-balance annual funding, facilities, curriculum and personnel of schools in property-poor counties, such as Lincoln, compared with those in more wealthy counties in the State.
The first section of our Constitution's education article is:
"The legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of free schools."
The Constitution's equal protection mandates are:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ."(Article III, Section 10)2 and
"The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay."(Article III, Section 17)3
The case was decided on pleadings, admissions, affidavits and statistical material from public documents.No testimony was offered.Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; defendants moved to dismiss because the complaint did not state a cause of action.
The court then made factual findings to the effect that the Lincoln County school system is inadequate, 4 apparently by comparison with four other counties: Kanawha, Marshall, Brooke and Hancock.
Its legal conclusions were that State government has not created a thorough and efficient system of public schools in Lincoln County, but has met "the constitutional mandate in some counties . . . ."Also:
(R. 330)
So equal protection guarantees were inapplicable.
The court dismissed the complaint, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appealed, asserting:
We note what may have been a fundamental procedural error.Apparently defendants' motion to dismiss was granted because plaintiffs had not demonstrated, in their affidavits, admissions and other documents, that the poor school system in Lincoln County is a product of the present school financing system as they alleged.This may have been sufficient reason to deny plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but could not justify granting a motion to dismiss against them.A motion to dismiss is designed simply to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint.We have held that such motions are not favored and in considering them, plaintiffs' factual allegations must be construed favorably to them and considered for purposes of the motion to be true.John W. Lodge Dist. Co. v. Texaco, Inc., W.Va., 245 S.E.2d 157(1978).
The trial court in its memorandum opinion recognized that the plaintiffs had asserted valid constitutional challenges to the present school financing system.It was not their legal theories that were deficient, and therefore a motion to dismiss was improper.
It is true that defendants filed an affidavit by Dr. James T. Ranson which questioned some of plaintiffs' factual allegations, but the court did not consider it to be a summary judgment request by defendants under Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., W.Va., 236 S.E.2d 207(1977).Even if it had elected to do so, summary judgment for defendants would have been inappropriate because defendants' affidavit did no more than raise issues of material fact.We have held that even though both parties move for summary judgment, the court cannot thereby dispose of the case where disputed issues of facts exist.Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770(1963).
The case must be remanded for further evidentiary development and, because there are significant and far-reaching public issues involved, it is advisable that we propose certain guidelines to the Circuit Court.We shall analyze applicable constitutional standards and then review the State's role in education and identify areas that require evidentiary development to allow judgment of the State's performance of its role.
The trial court correctly recognized that federal Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights are not available to children seeking educational equality.San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16(1973).5It properly concluded that a state is not constrained by the federal constitutional standard, but must examine its own constitution to determine its education responsibilities.It relied upon similar analyses made by other state courts.Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 376 A.2d 359(1977);Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273(1973).We have stated that we may interpret our own Constitution to require higher standards of protection than afforded by comparable federal constitutional standards.Adkins v. Leverette, W.Va., 239 S.E.2d 496, 499(1977).
Robinson affirmed a lower court judgment, holding the New Jersey school financing statute to be unconstitutional.The case has considerable relevance to our jurisdiction, because New Jersey's constitution contains a thorough and efficient clause and an equal protection section.We will mention the former later.
The court discussed equal protection and concluded that its legislature was required to provide a thorough and efficient education system throughout the state; that this made education a fundamental, constitutionally mandated right in New Jersey; and therefore the educational funding system must be strictly scrutinized to see if there was a compelling state interest served by any statutorily created inequalities.6
However, the Robinson court refused to place entire reliance on its equal protection clause to test the state's school financing formula, because it recognized there may be instances where the state must spend unequal amounts among the various school districts or counties:
( 7 )(62 N.J. at 492, 303 A.2d at 283)
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell
...and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and [3] academic and vocational skills'); Pauley v. Kelly , 162 W. Va. 672, 706, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979) (provision of constitutionally adequate education ‘implicit [ly]’ requires ‘supportive services: [1] good physical facilit......
-
Allen v. State, Human Rights Com'n
...State ex rel. Raese v. Battle, 149 W.Va. 761, 765, 143 S.E.2d 328, 331 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859, 881-82 (1979); Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Smith v. Kelly, 149 W.Va. 381, 141 S.E.2d 142 (1965); Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Island Creek Co......
-
Bailey v. Truby
...to this mandamus action, we find the cited reasoning of the Kansas Supreme Court in Miller persuasive. In Syllabus Point 3 of Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859 (W.Va.1979), this Court stated, "The mandatory requirements of 'a thorough and efficient system of free schools' found in Article XII......
-
White v. Manchin
...S.E.2d 791, 797-98 (1954); Syl. pt. 3, Berry v. Fox, 114 W.Va. 513, 172 S.E. 896 (1934), overruled on other grounds, Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859, 871 n. 25 (W.Va.1979); Syl. pt. 3, State v. Harden, 62 W.Va. 313, 58 S.E. 715, 60 S.E. 394 (1907); Syl. pt. 2, State v. Kyle, 8 W.Va. 711 Rea......
-
Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
...746, 754 (Tex. 2005); Brigham v. State, 692 A.2d 384, 397 (Vt. 1997); McCleary v. State 269 P.3d 227 (Wash. 2012); Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859, 884 (W. Va. 1979); Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 181 P.3d 43 (Wyo. 2008). This list does not include follow-up decisions at the complianc......
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 138 (Va. 1994) (S); Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington, 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978) (p); Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859 (W. Va. 1979) (p); Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. 1989) (S); Washakie County Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980) (......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...of last resort WV 1982 [Unreported] Trial court WV 1984 174 W. Va. 167 Court of last resort WV 1975 [Unreported] Trial court WV 1979 162 W. Va. 672 Court of last resort WV 1997 [Unreported] Trial court WV 2003 [Unreported] Trial court WY 2004 2004 WL 5833514 Trial court WY 2005 2005 WL 6468......
-
Coerced Choice: School Vouchers and Students With Disabilities
..."require[d] the General Assembly to provide the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education"); Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859, 878 (W. Va. 1979) (holding West Virginia Constitution education clause provided a fundamental right to education); Washakie Cty. Sch. Dist......