Legal Opinion
Marin Ass'n of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Ass'n
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 17, 2016No. A139610PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHMAN,
practice known as “pension spiking,” by which public employees use various stratagems and ploys to inflate their income and retirement benefits, has long drawn public ire and legislative chagrin. Effective January 1, 2013, the Legislature amended Government Code 1 section 31461, a provision of the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, with the aim of curtailing pension spiking by excluding specified items from the calculation of retirement income. A number of individuals currently employed by various governmental entities in the County of Marin, together with a number of…
2Cases cited69 opinions
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- General Motors Corp. v. RomeinSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Stone v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Assn., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Irvin v. Contra Costa Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- McGlynn v. State, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Hipsher v. L. A. Cnty. Emps. Ret. Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.