Legal Opinion
City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 29, 2012No. A132586PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MARGULIES, J.
The City of Pleasanton (Pleasanton) and a retired Pleasanton employee, James Linhart, petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel California’s Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and its Board of Administration (board) to retroactively increase Linhart’s monthly retirement allowance. Linhart contended the board erred in determining a portion of his compensation as a division chief for the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department was not pensionable. The trial court agreed and entered a judgment directing PERS to increase Linhart’s monthly pension allowance retroactively…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Driscoll v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Fukuda v. City of AngelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Crumpler v. Board of AdministrationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Ret. Sys., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- O'Neal v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2017
- Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Assn., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Duarte v. Cal. State Teachers' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.