Legal Opinion

District of Columbia v. Tarlosky

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 9, 1996No. 94-CV-1269 & 95-CV-376PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHWELB, Associate Judge:

The Superior Court granted summary judgment to appellees, who are retired members of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), with respect to their claim that a legislatively approved 4.2% increase in the salaries of active members of the MPD, denominated a “retention allowance,” entitled appellees (“retirees”) to a corresponding 4.2% increase in the retirement payments pursuant to the “equalization” provision of the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability Act (the Act), D.C.Code §§ 4r-601 to -634 (1994). On appeal, the District…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. BrownDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Lanier v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1994
  3. Jones & Associates, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Floyd v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
  2. O'Rourke v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. District of Columbia v. GouldDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Gause v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. Andrews v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010

11 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