Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Flisock v. State, Division of Retirement & Benefits

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1991No. S-3725PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

Peter E. Flisock seeks a higher monthly retirement benefit under the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) than he is now receiving. Flisock argues that the average base salary used in calculating his retirement benefits should include the lump-sum payment he received for unused leave he accrued over six years. The Division of Retirement Benefits (division) did not include the unused leave payment. The Teachers’ Retirement Board (board) and the superior court both affirmed the division’s decision. We conclude that the division should have included the lump-sum Flisock…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. North Slope Borough v. Sohio Petroleum Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Crumpler v. Board of AdministrationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  4. Union Oil Co. of California v. Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Hillman v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Whitely v. New Mexico State Personnel BoardNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Bartley v. State, Department of Administration, Teachers' Retirement BoardAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. SchmidtAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Faust v. Metropolitan Government of NashvilleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2006
  5. Municipality of Anchorage v. GallionAlaska Supreme Court · 1997

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API