Appeal, No. 1483 C.D. 1981 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 1, 1983
Opinion by
This is an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirming a Philadelphia Civil Service Commission (Commission) decision upholding appellant’s dismissal
Section 8(b) of the Local Agency Law,
Unfortunately, because of numerous substantial defects in appellant’s brief, defects which greatly impair our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we are constrained to quash this appeal without reaching the merits. In quashing an appeal because of a substantially defective brief, the Superior Court wisely noted:
We decline to become appellant’s counsel. When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof. (Citations omitted.)
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 299 Pa. Super. 64" court="Pa. Super. Ct." date_filed="1982-04-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-sanford-2079421?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2079421">299 Pa. Superior Ct. 64, 67, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (1982) (citations omitted); see
Explicit requirements to be followed in writing briefs, and the penalty for failing to adhere to same, are set forth in the Pennsylvania Eules of Appellate Procedure.
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of the rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant; and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.
Thus, whenever our ability to exercise the power of review is substantially impaired due to gross deviations from the appellate rules, we will suppress the defective brief and quash the appeal. Accord, Sanford; Taylor; Wyant.
The rules denominating the minimal requisites for a proper brief before this Court are set forth at Pa. R.A.P. 2111 et seq. Pa. R.A.P. 2111(a)
Appellant’s brief materially deviates from these rules in numerous substantial respects, including: (1) failure to include statement of jurisdiction in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2114; (2) failure to include a verbatim text of the order in question in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2115; (3) failure to append a copy of the Commission’s adjudication to brief in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2111(b); (4) failure to include a statement of the questions involved in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2116 (a); (5) failure to include a summary of the argument in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2118; (6) failure to divide argument “into as many parts as there are questions to be argued” in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a).
Absent in appellant’s brief are those matters, enumerated under Pa. R.A.P. 2111(a), whose inclusion in correct order is the sine qua non for proper appellate review. Instead, appellant’s brief is a hotchpotch consisting of “general rambling discourse” rife with invective, innuendo and insult, see, Sanford, 299 Pa. Super. 64" court="Pa. Super. Ct." date_filed="1982-04-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-sanford-2079421?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2079421">299 Pa. Superior Ct. at 67, 445 A.2d at 150, lacking any citation to authority and including under a section entitled “New Findings of Fact” scandalous and impertinent matter bearing slight relevance to the appeal.
Even if we were inclined, notwithstanding the substantial defectiveness of appellant’s brief, not to
This rule is to be considered in the highest decree mandatory, admitting of no exception,ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby.
Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a). Therefore, since appellant has failed to posit any questions for our consideration, we shall consider none. See, Commonwealth v. Unger, 494 Pa. 592, 432 A.2d 146" court="Pa." date_filed="1980-10-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-unger-1463710?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1463710">432 A.2d 146 (1980);
The appeal is quashed.
Order
And Now, the 1st day of June, 1983, the appeal of Margaret Wicker from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dated May 11,1981, is quashed.
Appellant was dismissed pursuant to Section 7.7-303 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, 351 Pa. Code §7.7-303, which provides :
Any dismissal or demotion after the completion of the required probationary period of service, or suspension of any employe in the civil service shall be for just cause only.
A perusal of the record reveals that appellant had amassed a work record with Philadelphia General Hospital marred by numerous infractions and incidents over a ten year period, including: (1) habitual tardiness; (2) abuse of sick leave privilege; (3) unsatisfactory job performance ratings; (4) insubordination.
Appellant is before this Court without benefit of counsel.
Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1133, formerly 53 P.S. §11308(b), repealed by Section 2(a) of the Judiciary Act Repealer Act, Act. of April 28,1978, P.L. 202, 42 P.S. §20002(a) [1429].
Pa. R.A.P. 101 et sea
Rule 9.111- Brief of the Appellant
(a) General Rule. The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise prescribed by the rules, shall consist of -the following matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Summary of argument.
(6) Argument for appellant.
(7) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(8) The opinion and pleadings specified in Subdivisions (b) and (e) of this rule.
For complete text of rules refer to Pa. R.A.P. 2101 et seq.
In Unger, 494 Pa. at 595 n. 1, 432 A.2d 146" court="Pa." date_filed="1980-10-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-unger-1463710?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1463710">432 A.2d at 147 n. 1, Justice Larsen noted that an appellant seeking post conviction relief had waived the issue of ineffectiveness of counsel (for advising appellant to plead guilty) because the claim was not included in appellant’s “Statement of Questions Involved” portion of brief. Unger was cited with approval in Commonwealth v. Jackson, 494 Pa. 457" court="Pa." date_filed="1981-07-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-jackson-2385936?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2385936">494 Pa. 457, 459 n. 1, 431 A.2d 944" court="Pa." date_filed="1981-07-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-jackson-2385936?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2385936">431 A.2d 944, 945 n. 1. (1981).