TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stull v. Robinson

Curtis C. Stull v. Walter Robinson, Individually and as a Supervisor of Gilpin Township : John Grajczar, Individually and as a Supervisor of Gilpin Township: and Ralph Knepshield, Individually and as a Supervisor of Gilpin Township

Stull v. Robinson, 411 A.2d 270 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 28, 1980
Docket
Nos. , No. 1307 C.D. 1978
Judges
Blatt, Craig, Crumlish, Disalle
Citations
411 A.2d 27049 Pa. Commw. 961980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1117

Opinion of the Court — Craig

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Judge Craig,

This appeal by appellant Curtis Stull is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, granting a motion by the Supervisors of Gil-pin Township for judgment on the pleadings.

Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus alleging that he had been dismissed from his position as acting chief of police in violation of the provisions of the Act of June 15, 1951, P.L. 586, 53 P.S. §811 et seq., known as the Police Tenure Act, in that he had not been furnished with a written statement of the charges against him, as required by Section 2 of that Act, 53 P.S. §812. Appellant sought reinstatement to his position and back pay.

The supervisors denied the allegation of dismissal (but admitted that they had asked for appellant’s resignation if he retained fulltime employment elsewhere) and denied any violation of the Act, which provides, inter alia, that a police officer shall not be removed except for causes stated, and that a statement of charges must be furnished.

The court below, accepting appellant’s allegation of dismissal, concluded that a mandamus action, for *98 reinstatement was improper in that the administrative remedy available under the Police Tenure Act should be pursued instead, with mandamus to be used only if needed to compel township compliance with the notice and other procedural requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the lower court properly granted judgment for the township.

We affirm upon, and adopt the able opinion of President Judge House of the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, at Docket No. 1977-0977-Civil therein.

Order

Now, this 28th day of January, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, dated April 21, 1978, is affirmed on the opinion of the lower court at No. 1977-0977-Civil Division.

Judge DiSalle did not participate in the decision in this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 11984: 219802026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gauden v. Borough of Roscoe470 A.2d 191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984)
  2. Mildred v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board417 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980)
  3. Ambrose v. Dupont Borough33 Pa. D. & C.3d 362 (1984)

Most recent

  1. Ambrose v. Dupont Borough33 Pa. D. & C.3d 362 (1984)
  2. Gauden v. Borough of Roscoe470 A.2d 191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984)
  3. Mildred v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board417 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list