Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 85-CA-1898-S

Decision Date07 February 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-CA-1898-S,85-CA-1898-S
Citation707 S.W.2d 349
PartiesDouglas L. STALLINS, Appellant, v. CITY OF MADISONVILLE, O.L. Lantaff, George A. Moore, II; James "Buddy" Gill; Norman Suthard; D.W. Riley; Bob G. Simmons; and Rudy Stone, Appellees.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Dick Adams, Madisonville, Stephen D. Wolnitzek, Covington, for appellant.

Byron L. Hobgood, W. Michael Troop, Madisonville, for appellees.

Before McDONALD, CLAYTON and DUNN, JJ.

DUNN, Judge.

Appellant, police officer Douglas L. Stallins, pursuant to KRS 15.520(2), brought an action in the Hopkins Circuit Court contesting the action of the City Council of the appellee, City of Madisonville, finding him guilty after a hearing of a violation of the General Rules and Regulations of that city's police department, and ordering his removal and dismissal on July 10, 1984. The action also contested the City Council's action on July 2, 1984, after hearing, disallowing his written grievance wherein he protested the police chief's failure to grant his requests for additional training and for promotion and for the chief's suspending and reprimanding him on several occasions.

The trial court pursuant to the statute and the dictates of Brady v. Pettit, Ky., 586 S.W.2d 29 (1979), afforded him a limited trial de novo in which it considered the transcript of each council hearing and the testimony of three additional witnesses Stallins provided.

On June 6, 1985, the trial court entered what it styled its Opinion and Judgment, but which in effect was its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, affirming the City Council's action finding him guilty and ordering his removal and dismissal from the police department and, in view of that determination, further held that the question of Stallins' grievance was moot. On June 17, 1985, Stallins filed a motion and amended motion, ostensibly pursuant to CR 52.04, "for additional findings of fact and/or reconsideration." The trial court on July 1, 1985, entered its order overruling the motion. This appeal is from that judgment.

The function of the hearing body in instances of charges against police officers is to make two determinations: first, whether the officer has violated the rules and regulations of the department and if so, second, it must exercise its discretion in imposing a penalty. The first is subject to judicial review; the second is not. Sound public policy requires that the matter of punishment and discipline of a police officer be left to the city. City of Columbia v. Pendleton, Ky.App., 595 S.W.2d 718 (1980).

The procedure in the circuit court upon judicial review is that as designated in Brady v. Pettit, supra. The discharged employee is entitled to something less than a trial de novo--a quasi trial de novo as it were. The burden shifts to the employee who has the obligation to furnish a transcript of the evidence before the hearing body and who has the right to call such additional witnesses as he may desire. The trial court in its review is to consider both the transcript and the additional testimony and it is limited to a determination of whether the administrative body acted arbitrarily 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 meted.

It is significant that in both Brady and City of Columbia v. Pendleton, supra, our Supreme Court and this Court in referring to the limitation of the trial court's review of the administrative body's action used the expression that the trial court acted arbitrarily, rather than the expression the former Court of Appeals used in City of Owensboro v. Noffsinger, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 517 (1955), that the evidence considered by the trial court preponderated against the decision made by the administrative body. It follows then that the test for arbitrariness as in all reviews of actions by administrative bodies is based on the absence of substantial evidence to support the action in question, or is based on the presence of proof so overwhelming that relief must be granted to the claimant. See Williams v. Cumberland Valley National Bank, Ky.App., 569 S.W.2d 711 (1978), and Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, Ky., 695 S.W.2d 418 (1985).

Here, even though the trial court applied the "preponderation" rule, its determination upholding the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Moore v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 2022
    ...circuit court's findings shall not be set aside unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 707 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Ky.App. 1986). Of course, appellate review of questions of law remains de novo. Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, 994 S.W.2d 516,......
  • Fournier v. City of Lawrenceburg, No. 2007-CA-000490-MR (Ky. App. 4/11/2008)
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2008
    ...employment as a police officer. In coming to its conclusions, the circuit court used the standard of review in Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 707 S.W.2d 349 (Ky.App. 1986), which states [t]he discharged employee is entitled to something less than a trial de novo — a quasi trial de novo a......
  • Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 2011
    ...exercise its discretion in imposing a penalty. The first is subject to judicial review; the second is not.Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 707 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Ky. App. 1986). When police disciplinary determinations are appealed to a circuit court, "[t]he discharged employee is entitled to......
  • Ca'Mel v. Louisville Metro/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't Police Dep't, 2013-CA-001988-MR
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 16, 2015
    ...not to disturb the determinations of the trial court unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. Stallins v. City of Madisonville, 707 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Ky. App. 1986). Of course, as with any appeal from a decision of an administrative agency, we review the trial court's applicati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT