Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kennedy v. South Carolina Retirement System

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 22, 2001No. 25133Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBurnett, Justice

I concur with Parts II and III of the majority opinion.18 However, I respectfully dissent from Part I of the opinion.

The dispute in this case concerns the General Assembly’s 1986 amendment to the definition of “average final compensation” for State employee retirement purposes found in South Carolina Code Ann. § 9-1-10(17) (Supp.1999).19 See Act. No. 540, Part II, § 25A, 1986 Acts 4897.20 More particularly, the dispute concerns the amendment’s effect on the calculation of the value of unused annual leave.

Prior to 1978, § 9-1-10(17) defined “average final compensation” as follows:(17) “Average…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. PleasantSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  2. Paschal v. State Election CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  3. Hercules Inc. v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1980
  4. Vernon v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1964
  5. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1958

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API