Matter of Bridgman v. Kern
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
We are of opinion that the technical oral examination was invalid for these reasons: (1) The direction that the “ examiners should fail not less than about one-half the total group of candidates ” was improper; (2) the instruction that the examiners adjust their ratings after consultation violated the civil service rule that “ Each subject shall be rated by two examiners acting separately ” (Rules of Municipal Civil Service Commission [New York City], rule 5, § 5, ¶ 1); (3) commentaries elicited from candidates were so vague or remote in character and broad in scope that the ratings in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sloat v. Board of Examiners of the Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
3Cited by18 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Paynter v. Marion Cty. Sup. Ct., Rm. No. 5Indiana Supreme Court · 1976
- Resnick v. Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- State Ex Rel. Kos v. AdamsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Dowling v. BrennanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Civil Service Commission v. FrazziniSupreme Court of Colorado · 1955
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.