City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi, 81-SC-549-DG
| Citation | 631 S.W.2d 632 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-SC-549-DG,81-SC-549-DG |
| Parties | The CITY OF HENDERSON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Movants, v. M. Adnan ZUBI, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Ronald G. Sheffer, W. Mitchell Deep, King, Deep, Branaman & Sheffer, Henderson, for movants.
William F. Polk, Jr., Walker & Polk, Henderson, for respondent.
William T. Warner, Nold, Mosley, Clare, Hubbard & Rogers, Louisville, for amicus E. G. Helm, Jr.
William T. Warner, F. Chris Gorman, Louisville, for amicus Jefferson County, Kentucky Police Merit Bd.
The trial court found that the Civil Service Commission did not act arbitrarily in dismissing respondent on grounds of insubordination. The Court of Appeals reversed. We granted discretionary review and reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
This appeal again presents the question of the extent of a "trial de novo " in circuit court. Trial de novo has had a chequered career in our jurisprudence. We have considered and reconsidered the proposition in all of its manifestations and finally arrived at Brady v. Pettit, Ky., 586 S.W.2d 29 (1979), as the final pronouncement on the subject. We are of the opinion we should adhere to Brady at least until a better idea comes along.
In summary Brady holds that the employee is entitled to something less than a classic "trial de novo." In the proceeding before the circuit court the dismissed employee has the burden of proof. He must furnish the transcript of the proceedings below and both sides may introduce other evidence. Then the circuit court's review is limited to a determination of whether in light of all the evidence the decision of the administrative body is arbitrary.
The Court of Appeals took the position there was some inconsistency in Brady and reversed the circuit court on the grounds that the circuit court should have tried the case de novo as fact finder. We are of the opinion this ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous in that it does not follow the limitation placed on de novo review by Brady.
The circuit court applied the proper standard of review. The Court of Appeals' opinion is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salisbury v. Housing Authority of City of Newport
...Center, 767 F.2d 270 (6th Cir.1985), or, if only a pretermination hearing is held it must be trial-type. 8 City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi, 631 S.W.2d 632 (Ky.1982); Brady v. Pettit, 586 S.W.2d 29 9 Defendants also argue that the existence of adequate state remedies in a ......
-
Wilson v. Askew
...a trial court to review their administrative dismissal. Brady v. Pettit, 586 S.W.2d 29, 32-33 (Ky. 1979); City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi, 631 S.W.2d 632 (Ky. 1982). This has been termed a quasi trial de novo. Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 707 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Ky.App.......
-
Cole v. City Council of City of Florence, No. 2006-CA-002108-MR (Ky. App. 9/21/2007)
...whether the employee violated the rules and regulations of the police department. Stallins at 350 (citing City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi, 631 S.W.2d 632 (Ky. 1982)). "[T]he test for arbitrariness as in all reviews of actions by administrative bodies is based on the absen......
-
Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 85-CA-1898-S
...in deciding whether the employee violated the rules and regulations of the police department. See also City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi, Ky., 631 S.W.2d 632 (1982). As related above, however, the review does not include the punishment It is significant that in both Brady a......