Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mazzo v. Board of Pensions & Retirement of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 17, 1992No. 69 E.D. Appeal Docket 1991Published

1DissentZappala, Justice

I conclude that the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act, 43 P.S. § 1311 et seq., does not preempt Philadelphia’s municipal ordinance prohibiting payment of benefits to employees who have not been reinstated to their positions after dismissal due to the filing of criminal charges. I would affirm the Commonwealth Court’s decision denying pension benefits to the Appellants.

Preemption of the field by the General Assembly is the exception and not the rule. Council of Middletown Township v. Benham, 514 Pa. 176, 523 A.2d 311 (1987). We must exercise restraint, therefore, in determining whether…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Western Pennsylvania Restaurant Ass'n v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Council of Middletown Township v. BenhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of PoliceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API