Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township

520 A.2d 952, 103 Pa. Commw. 560, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1918

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

DocketAppeal, No. 1890 C. D. 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 520 A.2d 952 (Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township, 520 A.2d 952, 103 Pa. Commw. 560, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1918 (Pa. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by Judge MacPhail,

Appellant, Sergeant Raymond J. Murphy of the Lower Merion Township Police Department, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which dismissed his appeal from an order of the Civil Service Commission of Lower Merion Township (Commission) affirming his demotion from Sergeant to [561]*561Grade “A” Patrolman. We affirm the court of common pleas.

On February 13, 1980, Appellant was charged with dereliction of duty, failure to report underage drinking, failure to secure his vehicle and hindering the investigation of a theft from his vehicle, all of which relate to events occurring at an underage drinking party to which Appellant was called when a complaint was received. The Superintendent of Police of Lower Merion Township permanently reduced Appellants rank from Sergeant to Grade “A” Patrolman with a corresponding reduction in salary. That action was upheld by the Commission whose adjudication was subsequently affirmed by the trial court.

Appellant argues here that (1) procedural defects before the Commission denied him due process; (2) the Commissions refusal to allow him adequate time to review subpoenaed documents denied him due process; (3) the charges against him were not established by “clear and convincing” evidence; (4) the charges were insufficient to warrant the penalty imposed; and (5) the Commission improperly considered his prior work record without informing him that this was to be at issue. Judge Brody of the court of common pleas addressed and rejected all of these same arguments and, after a careful review of the record, we are satisfied with that disposition.

We, accordingly, affirm on the basis of Judge Brody’s well-reasoned opinion, reported as Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township, Pa. D. & C. 3d , 116 Montg. Co. L.R. 298 (1985).

Order

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the above-captioned proceeding is affirmed.

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

Opinion by Judge MacPhail,

Appellant, Sergeant Raymond J. Murphy of the Lower Merion Township Police Department, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which dismissed his appeal from an order of the Civil Service Commission of Lower Merion Township (Commission) affirming his demotion from Sergeant to [561]*561Grade “A” Patrolman. We affirm the court of common pleas.

On February 13, 1980, Appellant was charged with dereliction of duty, failure to report underage drinking, failure to secure his vehicle and hindering the investigation of a theft from his vehicle, all of which relate to events occurring at an underage drinking party to which Appellant was called when a complaint was received. The Superintendent of Police of Lower Merion Township permanently reduced Appellants rank from Sergeant to Grade “A” Patrolman with a corresponding reduction in salary. That action was upheld by the Commission whose adjudication was subsequently affirmed by the trial court.

Appellant argues here that (1) procedural defects before the Commission denied him due process; (2) the Commissions refusal to allow him adequate time to review subpoenaed documents denied him due process; (3) the charges against him were not established by “clear and convincing” evidence; (4) the charges were insufficient to warrant the penalty imposed; and (5) the Commission improperly considered his prior work record without informing him that this was to be at issue. Judge Brody of the court of common pleas addressed and rejected all of these same arguments and, after a careful review of the record, we are satisfied with that disposition.

We, accordingly, affirm on the basis of Judge Brody’s well-reasoned opinion, reported as Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Lower Merion Township, Pa. D. & C. 3d , 116 Montg. Co. L.R. 298 (1985).

Order

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the above-captioned proceeding is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 A.2d 952, 103 Pa. Commw. 560, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-board-of-commissioners-of-lower-merion-township-pacommwct-1987.