Legal Opinion
Maher v. Justices of Quincy Division of District Court Department
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided October 27, 2006No. 05-P-1785PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKafker, J.
The first question we must decide is whether the retirement board of Quincy (board) properly required the plaintiff, Ralph Maher, to forfeit his retirement allowance pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), which provides that no member of a public employee retirement system shall be entitled to a retirement allowance after conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position. If the board correctly interpreted G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), the second question we must decide is whether the plaintiff waived his challenge based on the Eighth Amendment to the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Gurry v. Board of Public AccountancyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Doherty v. Retirement Board of MedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- MacLean v. State Board of RetirementMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Doe v. Sex Offender Registry BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
- United States v. FarrellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
- Herrick v. ESSEX REGIONAL RETIREMENT BOARDMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
- Maher v. Retirement Board of QuincyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Garney v. Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement SystemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.