Walker v. Dunham, 5828
| Decision Date | 12 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5828,5828 |
| Citation | 281 P.2d 125,78 Ariz. 419 |
| Parties | James E. WALKER, Jerry I. Hill and Bruce Whitaker, Appellants, v. H. L. DUNHAM, Howard W. Gibbons, and J. H. McNeill, composing the Civil Service Board of the City of Phoenix, and LeRoy Brenneman, Secretary of the Civil Service Board of the City of Phoenix, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Croaff & Croaff, and W. T. Choisser, Phoenix, for appellants.
William C. Eliot, City Atty., and Fred F. Bockmon, Asst. City Atty., Phoenix, for appellees.
Appellants, James E. Walker, Jerry I. Hill and Bruce Whitaker, were police officers of the city of Phoenix. On December 15, 1951, Walker and Hill received separation notices stating:
'* * * That you have violated the following provisions of Rule VIII of the Civil Service Rules of the City of Phoenix:
'Rule VIII(b) That you have been offensive in your conduct toward the public, and a ward of the City of Phoenix.
'Rule VIII(d) That you have violated a lawful and official regulation and failed to obey the lawful and reasonable direction given to you by your superior officer, which amounts to a serious breach of discipline and which may reasonably be expected to result in lower morale in the organization and to result in injury to the City and the public.
'Rule VIII(i) In that you have been guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer or employee of the City of Phoenix.'
On the same day Whitaker received a suspension notice charging:
'* * * That you have violated the following provisions of Rule VIII of the Civil Service Rules of the City of Phoenix:
'Rule VIII(a) That you have been incompetent and inefficient in the performance of your duties.
'Rule VIII(d) That you have violated a lawful and official regulation and failed to obey the lawful and reasonable direction given you by your superior officer, which amounts to a serious breach of discipline and which may reasonably be expected to result in lower morale in the organization and to result in injury to the City and the public.'
The aforesaid officers made written answer to the charges and appealed to the Civil Service Board of Phoenix. After hearing and the receipt of evidence concerning the charges, the board sustained the dismissal of officers Walker and Hill and the suspension of officer Whitaker. The officers brought the matter to the superior court of Maricopa County by writ of certiorari. Return was made by the civil service board of the record including a transcript of evidence. After hearing had thereon, the lower court rendered judgment affirming the action of the board. Appellants are here claiming the superior court erred because (1) the civil service board was without jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing and (2) the evidence did not sustain the findings of the board that the officers were guilty of the charges set forth in the notices.
Rule VIII referred to in the aforementioned notices sets forth various causes upon which an officer may be removed or suspended, among which are the following:
'(a) That the employee is incompetent or inefficient in the performance of his duty.
'(b) That the employee has been offensive in his conduct toward his fellow employees, wards of the City, or the public.
'(d) That the employee has violated any lawful or official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction given him by his superior officer when such violation or failure to obey amounts to insubordination or serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in lower morale in the organization or to result in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City, or the public.
'(i) That the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stant v. City of Maricopa Emp. Merit Bd.
...court to determine whether the record contained any evidence to support the decision of the board and city, see Walker v. Dunham, 78 Ariz. 419, 422, 281 P.2d 125, 127 (1955); Klein, 128 Ariz. at 64, 623 P.2d at 853;Dowd, 117 Ariz. at 429, 573 P.2d at 503, and whether the inferior board or o......
-
Mueller v. City of Phoenix ex rel. Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment II
...jurisdictional issues, the lower court must have found some evidence which will support the Board's determination. Walker v. Dunham, 78 Ariz. 419, 281 P.2d 125; Hunt v. Norton, supra; Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239, 112 P.2d 870. With the records of years of prior hearing......
-
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology and Psychiatry
...fact, the reviewing court will not substitute its decision for that of the Board. Mueller v. City of Phoenix, Supra; Walker v. Dunham, 78 Ariz. 419, 281 P.2d 125 (1955). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, it appears that Camelback has been operating at its present capacity......
- Hunley v. Industrial Commission, 1