Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ahrens v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 2, 2011No. 26966Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Hearn

I concur in the majority’s resolution of the issues of estoppel, class certification, summary judgment as to the additional causes of action, and exhaustion of remedies. However, I part company with the majority on whether a contract existed and respectfully dissent. In my view, the old working retirees statutes, together with the mandatory forms signed by the working retirees, created a binding contract between the State and the working retirees which could not be unilaterally rescinded by the State with the passage of Act 153.

In its simplest terms, a contract is formed when a legitimate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Furman University v. WallerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
  2. Layman v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
  3. McLeod v. Sandy Island Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
  4. McKinney v. South Carolina Police Officers Retirement SystemSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API