Frazzini v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 24 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23287,23287 |
| Citation | 452 P.2d 13,168 Colo. 454 |
| Parties | Cassio FRAZZINI, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry A. WOLF and Guy E. Peacock, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Alfred L. Capra, Joseph P. Lewis, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Kripke, Hoffman & Carrigan, Daniel S. Hoffman, Denver, for defendants in error.
A fire within the City and County of Denver, on March 11, 1967, sparked the controversy between Chief Frazzini and Assistant Chief Wolf and Captain Peacock, all officers of the Denver Fire Department, with which we are here concerned.
The Chief summarily suspended Wolf and Peacock, plaintiffs, for alleged misconduct in the performance of their duties at the fire. On March 14 and 15 the plaintiffs received notices that their suspensions were for ten and six days respectively.
Wolf and Peacock instituted an action in the district court in which they alleged that certain provisions of the Charter of the City and County of Denver and the 'Rules and Regulations for the Government of the Fire Department' governed the procedure for suspension and penalties. The complaint prayed that the trial court order the Civil Service Commission to grant the plaintiffs a legal hearing forthwith concerning the suspension orders of the Fire Chief, or, in the alternative, that it order the Manager of Safety to grant a legal hearing forthwith, with the right of review by the Civil Service Commission.
The Chief, by private counsel, filed a motion to intervene, alleging in material part:
'That the power and authority of the Chief of the Fire Department, vested in that official by the Charter of the City and County of Denver, is herein sought to be curtailed and, in certain particulars, eliminated; that Frazzini would be bound by any judgment entered herein and the future course and conduct of his office, in certain particulars, would be governed by any judgment entered herein.'
The motion was confessed and Frazzini's answer was filed. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment, which was granted, remanding the cause to the Manager of Safety for a hearing
'* * * consistent with the general requirements of due process, within a reasonable time, so that said Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to defend against charges preferred * * * against them by the Chief of the Fire Department arising out of their alleged misconduct during a March 11, 1967, fire * * *.'
It should be noted that at the start of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Frazzini's original counsel withdrew his representation and it was assumed by the City Attorney. Subsequently, counsel now of record in this court filed a 'MOTION TO OPEN THE JUDGMENT, MAKE NEW FINDINGS AND ENTER JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENOR.' The intervenor is the only plaintiff in error and is represented solely by counsel of his own choosing.
In support of his motion to open the judgment, the Chief relied upon a document dated November 25, 1966, which, in full, states:
'Article XI, Sections 1 thru Section 7 of the Department Rules and Regulations is hereby amended to read as follows:
'Any Officer or Member of the classified service of the Denver Fire Department shall be subject to descharge (sic), reduction in grade, fine and suspension for a violation of the written rules and regulations of Fire Department governing the conduct of said members.
'Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings shall be those set forth in the Charter of the City and County of Denver and specifically as set forth in C.5.73 thru C.5.73--6.
'By order of;
/s/ Cassio Frazzini
Cassio Frazzini, Chief
Denver Fire Department'
'Approved
/s/ Alfred L. Capra
Alfred L. Capra, Manager
Department of Safety & Excise.'
The issue, which we are asked to resolve, is stated by the intervenor in this language:
'Stripped to its naked essentials, and notwithstanding a rather voluminous record, this case involves only one issue; namely, does the Chief of the Denver Fire Department have the authority to suspend members of the Department for ten days or less, either with or without a 'hearing'?'
The trial court, in its order of October 6, 1967, found that the applicable charter provision was Section C.5.73--1, which provides:
'Both the Chief of the Fire Department and the Chief of the Police Department shall have the power and authority to suspend for not more than ten days without pay, any member in the classified service under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turney v. Civil Service Com'n, No. 08CA0215.
...360, 366, 411 P.2d 778, 781 (1966); Bratton v. Dice, 93 Colo. 593, 603, 27 P.2d 1028, 1031-32 (1933); see also Frazzini v. Wolf, 168 Colo. 454, 458, 452 P.2d 13, 15 (1969); City of Miami v. F.O.P. Miami Lodge 20, 571 So.2d 1309, 1329 When a police officer is disciplined or terminated, the p......
-
DeBono v. Vizas
...is entitled to notice of charges and a hearing construed city charter provisions which provided for such procedures. Frazzini v. Wolf, 168 Colo. 454, 452 P.2d 13 (1969); Pueblo v. Grady, 131 Colo. 313, 281 P.2d 513 (1955); Bratton v. Dice, supra; Alderman v. Darrow, 13 Colo. 460, 22 P. 784 ......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...Big Top, Inc. v. Hoffman, 156 Colo. 362, 399 P.2d 249 (1965); Jesseph v. People, 164 Colo. 312, 435 P.2d 224 (1967); Frazzini v. Wolf, 168 Colo. 454, 452 P.2d 13 (1969); Johnson v. People in Interest of W___ J___, 170 Colo. 137, 459 P.2d 579 (1969); Woodson v. Ingram, 173 Colo. 65, 477 P.2d......