Hawkins v. City of Steubenville
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
Appellants, the city of Steubenville and others, contend that the court, by its opinion, found that the charges which resulted in appellee’s dismissal were true; that therefore, under the provisions of Section 486-17a, General Code, the court had no discretion but to affirm the findings of the civil service commission; that the court had no power to modify the findings of the commission and could only “determine the sufficiency of the cause of removal,” and, after so determining, must either affirm or disaffirm the action of the director of public safety and the findings of the civil service…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Fire Department v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1949
- Vetterli, Chief of Police v. Civ. Serv. Com. of S.L.C.Utah Supreme Court · 1944
- Fortune v. Civil Service CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- Kearns v. SherrillOhio Supreme Court · 1940
- Kearns v. Sherrill, City Mgr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.