Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DONA RAE DICELLO v. BOARD DIRECTORS RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT (12/15/77)

decided: December 15, 1977.

DONA RAE DICELLO
v.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in case of Dona Rae DiCello v. Board of School Directors of Riverside School District, No. 19 January Term, 1976.

COUNSEL

W. Boyd Hughes, for appellant.

Peter J. O'Brien, for appellee.

William Fearen, Michael I. Levin, and Cleckner & Fearen, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

Judges Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of two. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 40]

The Riverside School District has appealed a summary judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in favor of Dona Rae DiCello and against the District.

DiCello, an elementary guidance counselor, was a temporary professional employee of the appellant School District during the school year 1974-75. Assertedly because of budget reductions in the 1975-76 school year, the District School Board abolished DiCello's position and notified her in July 1975 that her employment with the District was at an end. DiCello's

[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 41]

    request for a hearing was refused by the School Board. She then sued in mandamus, seeking an order which would require the School Board to conduct a hearing on her suspension and to reinstate her meanwhile. After the pleadings were closed, DiCello moved for summary judgment. The court below granted her motion, directing both the hearing and reinstatement. The School District has appealed. We permitted the participation of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association in support of the position of the School District. We have concluded that the court below correctly decided that DiCello was entitled to a Local Agency Law hearing with respect to the termination of her employment but that it should not have ordered her reinstatement.

Sections 2(1) and 4 of the Local Agency Law, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1133, as amended, 53 P.S. ยงยง 11302(1), 11304 provide, respectively, the following:

'Adjudication' means any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by a local agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities or obligations of any or all of the parties to the proceeding in which the adjudication is made. . . .

No adjudication shall be valid as to any party unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of a hearing and an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.