Legal Opinion
Neske v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided March 13, 2007No. SC 87976, SC 87977PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARY R. RUSSELL, Judge.
The City of St. Louis 1 appeals the trial court’s determination that it was required to pay the entire amount certified by the City’s Police Retirement System (“PRS”) and its Firemen’s Retirement System (“FRS”) in past fiscal years. The trial court’s decision is affirmed, as there is no Hancock Amendment violation in that there is no new or increased activity required of the City, there is no conflict with Mo. Const, art. VI, section 26(a), and the City is required to pay the entire amount certified.
Background
The PRS and the FRS are created and governed by statute. 2…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- State Ex Rel. Rothermich v. GallagherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
- Boone County Court v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Fort Zumwalt School District v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
- Miller v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Hargis v. JLB Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2011
- Committee for Educational Equality v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
- American Federation of Teachers v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
- Berra v. DanterMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- City of Jefferson City, Mo. v. Cingular WirelessCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.