Opinion

Morrison v. Department of Highways

  • 229 La. 116
  • 85 So. 2d 51
  • 1955 La. LEXIS 1462
Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Filed
Dec 12, 1955
Status
Published
Author
Hawthorne
On the bench
Moise, McCaleb, Hawthorne
Cited by
7 cases

"Retirement is not dealt with in the amendment, unless by mental gymnastics we could come to construe that 'removal' means 'retirement.' These words are not synonymous."

How later courts described this case

  • "Retirement is not dealt with in the amendment, unless by mental gymnastics we could come to construe that 'removal' means 'retirement.' These words are not synonymous."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HAWTHORNE, Justice

(dissenting).

It is my view that the ruling of the Civil Service Commission in this case is correct and should be affirmed.

*125 Appellant was removed pursuant to the requirements of Rule 12.9(b), quoted m the majority opinion. This rule, which has the effect of law, the Commission had power and authority to adopt under Article 14, Section 15(1), of our state Constitution, which provides: “There is vested in the State Civil Service Commission * * * the authority and power * * * to adopt * * * and enforce rules which shall have the effect of law, regulating employment, * * * removal, qualifications, and other personnel matters * * * and employment conditions * * *, and carrying out generally in the foregoing respects, and as may be otherwise necessary to that end, the provisions and purposes of Civil Service * * (Italics mine.)

R.S. 42:585 requires compulsory retirement of state employees in the classified service who are members of the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System upon attainment of age 70. This statute has no application to state employees in the classified service who are not members of this system. To place all state employees who are in the classified service in the same situation as to retirement and to' provide uniform requirements as to the retirement age, the Commission adopted Rule 12.9(b). It is thus apparent that this rule is one “regulating employment” and “removal”, and hence authority to adopt it is vested in the Commission by Article 14, Section 15(1), of the Constitution.

I respectfully dissent.

On Petition for Rehearing

Rehearing denied.

McCALEB, J., dissents.

HAWTHORNE, J., adheres to his dissent on the original hearing.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.