Legal Opinion

Healey v. Jones

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1942No. Appeal, 41PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Bhodes, J.,

The controlling issue in this mandamus proceeding is the status of appellant. If he had not acquired a civil service status under the Act of May 23, 1907, P. L. 206, as amended, 53 PS §9361 et seq., there was no violation of the act in his discharge by the Council of the City of Scranton. The burden was on appellant to establish that he had title de jure to the position of clerk, and this required proof that he had been appointed a clerk in compliance with the Civil Service Act. Detoro v. Pittston et al., 344 Pa. 254, 257, 25 A. 2d 299. We agree with the court below, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McCartney v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Detoro v. PittstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Crawford v. Clairton CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Steiner v. ReadingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Government of Nashville v. PoeTennessee Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Manning v. Millbourne Borough Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. METROPOLITAN GOV. OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON CO. v. PoeTennessee Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Davenport v. ReedCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. State ex rel. Atkin v. City of KnoxvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1958

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API