Legal Opinion

Hopkins v. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided June 30, 1998No. 96-6302PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

This case presents the question whether a state’s forfeiture of more than two-thirds of a retired state employee’s pension, as a result of the employee’s conviction for bribery after the employee has begun to collect his pension, violates either the Fifth or Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that the forfeiture is not unconstitutional under the Double Jeopardy Clause because of the doctrine of dual sovereigns, nor is it unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause because, under Oklahoma law, the employee had not acquired a vested property…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. United States v. WheelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Bartkus v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hames v. City of MiamiDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2007
  2. Recreational Developments of Phoenix, Inc. v. City of PhoenixDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1999
  3. Medina v. PachecoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
  4. Hipsher v. L. A. Cnty. Emps. Ret. Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. Bulger v. State Board of RetirementMassachusetts Superior Court · 2009

3 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