State of Ohio v. Lewis, 99 Ohio St.3d 97, 789 N.E.2d 195 (Ohio 2003).
The Ohio Supreme Court refused to allow further proceedings in DeRolph v. State, and ended the courts’ jurisdiction over the case. It noted that “[t]he duty now lies with the General Assembly to remedy an educational system that has been found . . . to still be unconstitutional,” but ruled that no further judicial proceedings in the matter would be appropriate.
DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 97 Ohio St.3d 434, 780 N.E.2d 529 (Ohio 2002) (“DeRolph IV”).
After ruling, in 2001 in DeRolph III,, that the state still had failed to satisfy the constitutional mandate of a thorough and efficient system of common schools and ordering the state to implement certain changes to satisfy the tests set forth in DeRolph I and II (DeRolph v. State, 93 Ohio St.3d 309, 754 N.E.2d 1184 ("DeRolph III")), the Ohio Supreme Court vacated that order in this decision, found that the state’s efforts to comply with the constitutional mandate still were insufficient, and ruled that a “complete systematic overhaul” of the state’s system of school funding, “not further nibbling at the edges,” were necessary. (But see State v. Lewis, 99 Ohio St.3d 97, 789 N.E.2d 195 (2003).)
DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 89 Ohio St.3d 1, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000) (“DeRolph II”).
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the state had failed to comply with the mandate of the education clause of the state constitution, but ruled that it should be given more time to comply.
DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997) (“DeRolph I”).
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the state’s system of school finance violated the state constitutional mandate of a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state. Specifically, the Court ruled that four factors contributed to the “unworkability” of the system: (1) the operation of the School Foundation Program, which resulted in “vast wealth-based disparities among Ohio’s schools, (2) the emphasis of Ohio's school funding system on local property tax, (3) the requirement of school district borrowing through the spending reserve and emergency school assistance loan programs, and (4) the lack of sufficient funding for construction and maintenance of public school buildings. The Court also made a point of addressing the financing of school facilities. The Court held, “A thorough and efficient system of common schools includes facilities in good repair and the supplies, materials, and funds necessary to maintain these facilities in a safe manner, in compliance with all local, state, and federal mandates.”
Bd. of Educ. Cincinnati v. Walter, 58 Ohio St. 2d 368, 390 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio 1979).
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the state’s system of school finance against plaintiffs’ claims that the system violated the equal protection and benefit clause and the education clause of the state constitution.
Miller v. Korns, 107 Ohio St. 287, 140 N.E. 773 (Ohio 1923).
Plaintiff taxpayer claimed the state’s system of school finance, which provided that some revenue raised in certain counties was spent on the school systems of other counties where insufficient revenue had been raised, violated the constitutional requirement of a uniform system of taxation. The trial court rejected the claim, and its decision was upheld on appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state constitutional requirement of a thorough and efficient system of schools throughout the state justified the system of taxation.