Hanson v. City of Idaho Falls
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SPEAR, Justice.
Appellants are all former members of the Idaho Falls police department. They brought this action to recover the entire amount deducted from their salaries and placed in the Policeman’s Retirement Fund. Appellants contend that the law creating the fund is unconstitutional. The district court found that the law was constitutional and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant city, respondent here. The Policeman’s Retirement Fund (P.R.F.) was created pursuant to Title 50, Chapter 21 of the Idaho Code enacted in 1947 (revised and recompiled as Title 50, Chapter 15 of the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bakenhus v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1956
- Allen v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Hickey v. Pittsburgh Pension BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Feil v. City of Coeur D'AleneIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Village of Moyie Springs v. Aurora Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1960
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
- Dadisman v. MooreWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1989
- Idaho Water Resource Board v. KramerIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
- Taylor v. Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff's Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Ray v. Nampa School Dist. No. 131Idaho Supreme Court · 1991
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.