Legal Opinion
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. v. County of Mower
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 24, 1992No. C9-90-2329PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COYNE, Justice.
On the petition of the County of Mower and its Board of Commissioners we review two separate issues: (1) May essential employees compel their employers to submit disputes over the payment of dependent health care premiums upon retirement to interest arbitration? (2) Do retirees who retired under a collective bargaining agreement that provides full payment of dependent health care premiums during retirement have a vested right to such coverage so that it cannot be altered absent express consent? The court of appeals answered both questions in the affirmative. We reverse…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 & 96, AFL-CIO v. SundquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Christensen v. Minneapolis Municipal Employees Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320 v. County of WashingtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. v. County of MowerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
3Cited by9 opinions
- Poole v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Strong v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Marconi v. City of JolietAppellate Court of Illinois · 2013
- Norman v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of ChisholmCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.