Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Metcalfe v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 2016No. 7132 S-15528/57Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFabe, Chief Justice

Although I agree with the court’s decision affirming on alternative grounds the superior court’s dismissal of Metcalfe’s claim for money damages, I respectfully disagree with the decision to remand this case to the superior court for further proceedings. In my view, the superior court’s dismissal of this ease in its entirety should be affirmed because article XII, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution does not encompass Metcalfe’s claim. Met-calfe is not a member of PERS within the meaning of the PERS statutes, so the constitutional prohibition on impairing or diminishing membership benefits…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ransom v. HanerAlaska Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Municipality of Anchorage v. GentileAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Hammond v. HoffbeckAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Municipality of Anchorage v. GallionAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Snyder v. American Legion Spenard Post No. 28Alaska Supreme Court · 2005

8 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