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.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY PITTSBURGH v. THOMAS PARKS (02/06/84)

decided: February 6, 1984.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANT
v.
THOMAS PARKS, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Appeal of Thomas Parks v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Pittsburgh, No. SA 756 of 1982.

COUNSEL

Richard J. Joyce, Assistant City Solicitor, with him D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellant.

Stanford A. Segal, Gatz, Cohen, Segal & Koerner, P.A., for appellee.

Judges Williams, Jr., Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Williams, Jr. dissents.

Author: Macphail

[ 80 Pa. Commw. Page 135]

The Civil Service Commission of the City of Pittsburgh (Commission) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated January 28, 1983, which reversed the decision of the Commission and directed the Commission to certify payment of back wages to Thomas Parks (Parks) and to continue to certify Parks as a domiciliary of the City of Pittsburgh (City) for future pay periods from the date of the order.

The Commission in its decision dated October 21, 1982, found that Parks was not a resident of the City and that he therefore no longer complied with the residency requirements*fn1 for employment by the City. For this reason, the Commission refused to continue to certify pay for Parks, who had been employed as a firefighter by the City. The common pleas court took no additional evidence, but determined upon the record from the Commission that the Commission's findings concerning Parks' domicile were not supported by substantial evidence, that the Commission did not

[ 80 Pa. Commw. Page 136]

    meet its burden of proving a change of domicile by Parks and that Parks' domicile was in the City.*fn2

Our review, in an appeal from a civil service commission adjudication where the trial court took no additional evidence, must focus upon the decision of the commission. We are limited to determining whether the commission "abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." City of Meadville, Firemen's Civil Service Comm'n v. Neff (City of Meadville), 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 259, 262, 450 A.2d 1078, 1079 (1982).

Section 181.02, the City residency requirement which Parks was found to have violated, states that:

All City employees and officials, including but not limited to Police Department and Fire Department personnel, shall be domiciled in the City at the time of their initial appointment and shall continuously maintain their domicile within the City throughout their terms of employment with the City. (Emphasis added.)

A determination of where a person is domiciled is governed by the facts of each individual case. City of Meadville. Which ...


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.