Stiftel v. Malarkey
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
TUNNELL, Justice Ad Litem,
for the majority:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Chancery,1 denying plaintiffs, who are all our Superior Court judges, the in-junctive and monetary relief they seek against the State. Plaintiffs claim that since June 30, 1975, under the provisions of Senate Bill No. 395, as amended by Senate Amendment No. 3 (amending 29 Del.C. by adding a new § 6532, hereinafter called the “C.O.L.A.” law), they have been' and are entitled to certain cost of living upward adjustments to their salaries, corresponding with the percentage increases in the cost of living…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of NJSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- International Business MacHines Corporation v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Booth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Cedar Rapids Community School District v. ParrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
- Commonwealth ex rel. Woodring v. WalterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Fasciana v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
- In Re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Evans v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
- Chrysler Corp. v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1983
- C & T Associates, Inc. v. Government of New Castle CountyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1979
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.