City of Hialeah v. Stola

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Hialeah v. Stola

330 So. 2d 825, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15101

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 330 So. 2d 825 (City of Hialeah v. Stola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Hialeah v. Stola, 330 So. 2d 825, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15101 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The City of Hialeah appeals a partial summary judgment reinstating plaintiff, Frank D. Stola, to his former position as a permanent civil service employee with the classification of electrician in the Maintenance Division of the Department of Public Works and ordering recovery of all of plaintiff’s back pay since the date of his dismissal after a finding by the trial court that there is no genuine issue as to the sole material fact that Stola was not served by his department director with a notice of discharge.

Rule XI, Section 1 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Hialeah clearly require that the discharge of a [826]*826permanent employee shall not become effective until the department director shall have first served that employee with a written notice of dismissal together with such facts as shall enable the employee to explain the situation in his own defense. It being undisputed that Stola was served by the assistant department director with written notice of dismissal, we find the trial judge was correct in entering summary judgment for the plaintiff. See Bryan v. Landis, 106 Fla. 19, 142 So. 650 (1932).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The City of Hialeah appeals a partial summary judgment reinstating plaintiff, Frank D. Stola, to his former position as a permanent civil service employee with the classification of electrician in the Maintenance Division of the Department of Public Works and ordering recovery of all of plaintiff’s back pay since the date of his dismissal after a finding by the trial court that there is no genuine issue as to the sole material fact that Stola was not served by his department director with a notice of discharge.

Rule XI, Section 1 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Hialeah clearly require that the discharge of a [826]*826permanent employee shall not become effective until the department director shall have first served that employee with a written notice of dismissal together with such facts as shall enable the employee to explain the situation in his own defense. It being undisputed that Stola was served by the assistant department director with written notice of dismissal, we find the trial judge was correct in entering summary judgment for the plaintiff. See Bryan v. Landis, 106 Fla. 19, 142 So. 650 (1932).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 825, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hialeah-v-stola-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack