Court Opinion

ID: 9708935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:35:56.950298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:44.848230
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion ry
Judge Craig:
Essentially factual questions were involved in the State Civil Service Commissions determination that representations by the Director of Enforcement of the Liquor Control Board caused Respondent Venesky to forego contesting the boards recission of its May 25, 1983 action promoting him, and also caused him to waive the Williamsport opening and adhere to the Wilkes-Barre vacancy prospect. Acceptance of the testimony of the Director of Enforcement, or of the opposing testimony of Respondent Venesky, turned on the matter of whom to believe, and the Commission, as the factfinder, has the exclusive power to make that credibility choice, rather than this court.
Accordingly, the decision should be affirmed.