Schluraff v. Rzymek

208 A.2d 239, 417 Pa. 144, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 397
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 16, 1965
DocketAppeal, 202
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 208 A.2d 239 (Schluraff v. Rzymek) 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.

Bluebook
Schluraff v. Rzymek, 208 A.2d 239, 417 Pa. 144, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 397 (Pa. 1965).

Opinions

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

In Commonwealth ex rel. Hanson v. Reitz, 403 Pa. 434, 170 A. 2d 111 (1961), Bowers v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 402 Pa. 542, 167 A. 2d 480 (1961), and Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 125 A. 2d 354 (1956), we held that where the legislature creates a public office and provides that the holders of that office shall be appointed for fixed terms with staggered expiration dates, the presence of staggered terms indicates a legislative intent that the holders of the office are not removable by the appointor at his pleasure.

Here the lower court relied for its decision on Reitz, Bowers and Watson. It did so improperly since the officer involved in this litigation was appointed to the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes for a fixed term expiring simultaneously with the terms of the other appointees to the Board and thus does not come within the staggered term rule of the above cases. The Board of Commissioners for a Third Class County is empowered by Article VI, §4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to dismiss a member of the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes at its pleasure and neither the staggered term doctrine nor Article XII, §1 of our Constitution insulates him from such dismissal.

[146]*146Judgment reversed and remanded for further action by the court below consistent with this opinion.

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

Related

Arneson v. Wolf
117 A.3d 374 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Venesky v. Ridge
789 A.2d 862 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Pievsky v. Ridge
Third Circuit, 1996
Pievsky v. Ridge
921 F. Supp. 1335 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
Braderman v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
598 F. Supp. 834 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1984)
Perkiomen Township v. Hunsberger
423 A.2d 13 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Cabinet Salaries
9 Pa. D. & C.3d 287 (Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, 1978)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Sortino v. Singley
392 A.2d 1337 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Commonwealth v. Schofield
2 Pa. D. & C.3d 587 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Vignola
285 A.2d 869 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Naef v. Allentown
227 A.2d 888 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1967)
Philadelphia v. Sacks
210 A.2d 279 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
Schluraff v. Rzymek
208 A.2d 239 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 A.2d 239, 417 Pa. 144, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schluraff-v-rzymek-pa-1965.