From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Lansdale Borough

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Jul 28, 2015
120 A.3d 992 (Pa. 2015)

Opinion

No. 930 MAL 2014.

07-28-2015

George JOHNSON, Respondent v. LANSDALE BOROUGH and Lansdale Borough Civil Service Commission, Petitioners.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issues, as stated by Petitioner:

a. Whether the Commonwealth Court committed reversible error by holding that a common pleas court's standard of review of a civil service commission adjudication is de novo, where a common pleas court takes no additional evidence on appeal and limits itself to the record before the commission?

b. Whether the Commonwealth Court committed reversible error by holding that a common pleas court may modify a penalty imposed by a municipality, where there is no evidence whatsoever that the penalty

was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory?

In all other respects, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Lansdale Borough

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Jul 28, 2015
120 A.3d 992 (Pa. 2015)
Case details for

Johnson v. Lansdale Borough

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE JOHNSON, Respondent v. LANSDALE BOROUGH AND LANSDALE BOROUGH CIVIL…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

Date published: Jul 28, 2015

Citations

120 A.3d 992 (Pa. 2015)