Johnson v. Lansdale Boro
This text of Johnson v. Lansdale Boro (Johnson v. Lansdale Boro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
GEORGE JOHNSON, : No. 930 MAL 2014 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Commonwealth Court v. : : : LANSDALE BOROUGH AND LANSDALE : BOROUGH CIVIL SERVICE : COMMISSION, : : Petitioners :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Johnson v. Lansdale Boro, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-lansdale-boro-pa-2015.