Angwin v. City of Manchester, 7970
| Decision Date | 09 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 7970,7970 |
| Citation | 386 A.2d 1272,118 N.H. 336 |
| Parties | Deirdre R. ANGWIN, Constance Van Houten, Marge Doris Burns, Mary Donovan and the Manchester Education Association v. CITY OF MANCHESTER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
McLane, Graf, Greene, Raulerson & Middleton Professional Ass'n, Manchester (Jack B. Middleton and Robert E. Jauron, Manchester, by brief), for plaintiffs.
Elmer T. Bourque, City Sol., Manchester by brief and orally, for defendant.
Petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs request the court to declare unconstitutional and unenforceable Chapter 18, Sections 18-30, 18-31 and 18-32 of the ordinances of the city of Manchester because these sections require teachers and others employed in the Manchester school system to reside within the boundaries of the city. The Court (Batchelder, J.) reserved and transferred all questions of law without ruling. We rule that the requested relief should be granted.
The ordinance herein involved was adopted on April 17, 1977. The parties agree that for all intents and purposes (save for a grandfather clause) the ordinance is essentially identical to the one we invalidated in Donnelly v. Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789 (1971), wherein the city also attempted to impose continuing-residence requirements on its municipal employees. The defendant city apparently reenacted such a residence requirement for municipal employees in response to McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 424 U.S. 645, 96 S.Ct. 1154, 47 L.Ed.2d 366 (1976). In McCarthy, the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal constitutional validity of such a continuing-residence requirement imposed by the city on municipal firemen. The defendant would have us reexamine our decision in Donnelly and overrule it on the basis of McCarthy. We refuse to do so.
Donnelly v. Manchester, supra was based on both our State and Federal Constitutions. We are not circumscribed by standards set forth in McCarthy if we grant individuals more rights than are called for by federal constitutional minima. State v. Hogg, 118 N.H. ---, 385 A.2d 844 (1978). See State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. ---, 385 A.2d 831 (1978). This we clearly have done. The city urges that we adopt the so-called rational basis test, which requires only that the statute or ordinance in question be rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. We are not persuaded by defendant's several arguments, nor are we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carofano v. City of Bridgeport
...to invalidate residency requirements, like that involved here, applicable to municipal employees generally. Angwin v. Manchester, 118 N.H. 336, 386 A.2d 1272 (1978); Donnelly v. Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789 (1971). Most courts, however, have found no infringement of the fundamental......
-
Winkler v. Spinnato
...Such a residency requirement was, however, invalidated under the provisions of New Hampshire's State Constitution in Angwin v. Manchester, 118 N.H. 336, 386 A.2d 1272, and Donnelly v. Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789. This result is contrary to the general consensus among state and Fed......
-
Carson v. Maurer
...the Federal Constitution requires. Opinion of the Justices, 118 N.H. 347, 349-50, 387 A.2d 333, 335 (1978); Angwin v. Manchester, 118 N.H. 336, 337, 386 A.2d 1272, 1273 (1978); see State v. Hogg, 118 N.H. 262, 264, 385 A.2d 844, 845 (1978); State v. Phinney, 117 N.H. 145, 146, 370 A.2d 1153......
-
Morgan v. City of Wheeling
...analyzing similar residency requirements in Donnelly v. City of Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789 (1971) and Angwin v. City of Manchester, 118 N.H. 336, 386 A.2d 1272 (1978). Finally, the appellant claims that Ordinance 9046 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal c......