State
Police v. Brandon – Cmwlth. Court – November 24, 2015 – unreported* memorandum
decision
The
court vacated an ALJ decision concerning respondent’s right to possess a
firearm, because the decision did not contain proper findings and reasons, as
required by the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 507, which states that “All adjudications of a Commonwealth agency
shall be in writing, shall contain findings and the reasons for the
adjudication, and shall be served upon all parties or their counsel personally,
or by mail.” 2 Pa. C.S. §507.
Section
507 of the AAL requires that adjudications contain findings of fact that are
“sufficiently specific to enable [a reviewing] court … to pass upon questions of law.” In re: Petition for Formation of
Independent Sch. Dist., 962 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (quoting Henderson
v. Office of Budget, 537 A.2d 85, 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)). Further,
adjudications stating only that a party “failed to present evidence” to meet
its burden do not comply with Section 507 of the AAL.
Where a decision
contains no specific findings regarding the evidence, but rather merely set
forth conclusory findings, a remand is necessary for adjudication that complies
with 2 Pa. C.S. §507). Independent
Sch. Dist., supra.;
see also Turner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 462 A.2d 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (where
commission’s decision merely concluded that police officer’s dismissal was for
just cause without any findings as to which testimony was found credible, which
charges against the officer were substantiated by the evidence, or what facts
constituted just cause for dismissal from employment, remand was necessary for
findings of fact consistent with Section 555 of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.
C.S. §555), which is similar to 2 Pa. C.S. 507.
__________________
*An unreported
case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive
value. . . .” See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) and
Pa. R.A.P. 3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; Saturday, July 25, 2015]
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar)
