Askew v. Hargrave

Appellees brought this suit in federal court challenging Florida's Millage Rollback Law as violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that it had an invidiously discriminatory effect in its distribution of taxing authority for educational purposes by a standard related solely to a county's wealth. Appellants contended that the statute was only part of a total plan more nearly to equalize schoolchildren's educational opportunities on a statewide basis. A three-judge District Court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on the basis of the pleadings and appellees' affidavit, having rejected appellants' argument that the District Court should abstain from considering the case because of an intervening state court proceeding attacking the law on state constitutional grounds.

Held:


 * 1. The District Court mistakenly relied upon Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, and McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668, in refusing to abstain from deciding the case on the merits pending resolution by the state courts of state constitutional claims, the sustainment of which would obviate the need for determining the Fourteenth Amendment. Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, is an example of the line of decisions that should inform the discretion of the District Court in determining whether to abstain.


 * 2. Since the matter in which Florida's overall program operates ma be critical in resolving the equal protection claim, that claim should be decided not by summary judgment but after a full hearing.

313 F. Supp. 944, vacated and remanded.

Charles E. Miner, Jr., argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Rivers Buford, Jr., and Stephen Marc Slepin.

Hershel Shanks argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Allan I. Mendelsohn, Robert M. Perce, Jr., Richard H. Frank, and David Rubin.

William H. Adams III filed a brief for the Florida Education Research Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.

PER CURIAM.