Legal Opinion · Dissent

Balcrius v. HICKEY

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 26, 1981No. Appeal, 1636 C.D. 1980Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Blatt :

I regret that I must dissent.

I agree with the majority’s initial conclusion that, absent proper notice to the appellant of the temporary nature of the appointment, his promotion did not qualify as temporary under Rule XII of the Civil Service Regulations of the City of Scranton (Civil Service Regulations) and was, therefore, permanent in nature.

*265The affairs of the City of Scranton, however, are governed by a home rule charter adopted subsequent to our decision in Wolkoff v. Owens, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 74, 314 A.2d 545 (1974). As noted by the lower court,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mamallis v. Millbourne BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  2. ALMY v. Borough of WilkinsburgCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Wolkoff v. OwensCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Borough of Canonsburg v. FloodCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Murray v. City of Wilkes-BarreCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

1 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