Legal Opinion

Trosky v. Civil Service Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 18, 1995PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

The issue before the Court in these appeals is the appropriateness of the relief ordered by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County and affirmed by the Commonwealth Court. 1 These cases originated as statutory appeals challenging the procedure followed by the City of Pittsburgh in promoting police officers to fill vacancies in the rank of sergeant in December of 1990. The parties agreed to consolidate the cases in the common pleas court, and the matters were submitted for decision on stipulated facts.

According to the parties’ stipulation, the context of these…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Charles GUNBY, Jr., Appellant in 86-3707, v. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant in 86-3723Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  2. Detoro v. PittstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. McGrath v. StaiseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  4. Gallo v. John Powell Chevrolet, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Manning v. Millbourne Borough Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Atacs Corporation Airtacs Corporation, in 97-1812 v. Trans World Communications, Inc., in 97-1813. Nos. 97-1812, 97-1813Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  4. Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

53 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