Legal Opinion

City of Eugene v. State

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 2005No. CC 99C-12794; CC 99C-12838; CC 99C-20235; CC 00C-16173; CA A121400; SC S50617PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*117DE MUNIZ, J.

These consolidated appeals, over which we have exclusive jurisdiction,1 require us to determine whether a circuit court properly vacated and remanded certain orders that the Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB) issued in 1998 and 2000.2 PERB issued two orders establishing, for the years 1998 and 2000, the amounts that public employers were required to contribute into the Public Employees Retirement Fund (the fund), and one order allocating the fund’s 1999 earnings among various accounts within the fund. The parties present several arguments pertaining to the trial court’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Yancy v. ShatzerOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Hamel v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Edmunson v. Department of Insurance & FinanceOregon Supreme Court · 1992

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Arken v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  2. White v. Public Employees Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. City of Eugene v. STATE, PERBOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Petrillo v. Public Employees Retirement BoardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. City of Eugene v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API