Legal Opinion

McGlynn v. State

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided March 20, 2018No. A146855PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBanke, J.

*473*551INTRODUCTION

In this mandamus proceeding, six judges who were elected to the superior court in mid-term elections in 2012, but who did not take office until January 7, 2013, maintain they are entitled to benefits under the Judges' Retirement System II (JRS II)1 as in effect at the time they were elected, rather than at the time they assumed office. This is a matter of considerable importance to these judges because, on January 1, 2013, JRS II became subject to the provisions of the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA),2 which amended virtually all state employee…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Driscoll v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Kern v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. United States v. HatterSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Alameda County Deputy etc. v. Alameda County Employees' etc.California Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Bishop v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2026
  3. Blaser v. Cal. State Teachers' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  4. Ramos v. Funding Rush, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2023
  5. S.F. Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. City and County of S.F. CA1/3California Court of Appeal · 2020

1 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