Mercier v. City of Central Falls

412 A.2d 927
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedMarch 26, 1980
DocketNo. 78-63-Appeal
StatusPublished

This text of 412 A.2d 927 (Mercier v. City of Central Falls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mercier v. City of Central Falls, 412 A.2d 927 (R.I. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION

DORIS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment in which the Superior Court held that a provision of the Home Rule Charter of Central Falls empowered the city council to enact an ordinance mandating the retirement of all firefighters and policemen at the age of sixty-five.

The plaintiff, Roland Mercier, had been a member of the Central Falls Police Department for thirty-six years, serving as Chief of Police since 1969. In November 1976, the Council for the City of Central Falls (council) passed an ordinance imposing on all members of the fire and police department pension plans a mandatory retirement age of sixty-five years. Because plaintiff was seventy-one years old at that time, he was forced to vacate his position in December 1976, although prior to that time he had performed his job satisfactorily. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action, alleging that the council lacked the authority to compel the mandatory retirement of any municipal employee and that the ordinance was therefore void.1 The trial justice ruled that the council had the authority to enact the ordinance. The justice reasoned that a provision in the city’s Home Rule Charter establishing a merit employment system provided the basis of authority for the council to act.

The sole issue before us is whether the council possessed the authority to enact the ordinance. Although we concur with the trial justice that the council was empowered to enact the ordinance, we disagree with his finding that the city’s Home Rule Charter provided the source of the council’s authority. In 1925, the Legislature passed a law conferring on the council the authority to establish a pension fund for the officers of the Central Falls Police Department.2 Pursuant to this stature, the council has since created a pension fund. The 1925 act further empowered the council “to establish by ordinance all rules and regulations pertaining to said fund * * * as to it shall seem expedient.” Public Laws 1925, ch. 703, § 2. It is from this legislation that the council derived its authority to impose a mandatory retirement age. The grant of power to create and to regulate the pension fund impliedly includes a grant to enact ordinances on incidental matters that are necessary to the proper and effi[929]*929cient administration of the fund. Soltis Appeal, 390 Pa. 416, 418-19, 135 A.2d 744, 745 (1957); Doyle v. City of Scranton, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 8, 10, 347 A.2d 330, 331 (1975). The age at which all policemen whose positions are covered by the pension fund must retire is one such incidental matter.

It is established that this court may sustain a correct judgment of a lower court although we do not accept that court’s reasoning. DiRaimo v. DiRaimo, 117 R.I. 703, 708, 370 A.2d 1284, 1287 (1977). Accordingly, because of the provisions of the 1925 legislation, we sustain the judgment of the trial justice.

The plaintiff’s appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Soltis Appeal
135 A.2d 744 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1957)
DiRaimo v. DiRaimo
370 A.2d 1284 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1977)
Doyle v. City of Scranton
347 A.2d 330 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
412 A.2d 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercier-v-city-of-central-falls-ri-1980.