Legal Opinion
In Re Retirement Cases
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 11, 2003No. A097568, A097692, A097701, A097705, A097744, A097924, A098686PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAMBDEN, J.
The counties involved in these consolidated appeals maintain employee retirement plans under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) as codified in 1947. (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) The retirement boards in these counties are required to determine whether items of remuneration paid to employees qualify as “compensation” under section 31460 and “compensation eamable” pursuant to section 31461, and therefore must be included as part of a retiring employee’s “final compensation” (§ 31462 or § 31462.1) for purposes of calculating the amount of a pension.
Prior to…
2Cases cited70 opinions
- Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Davis v. Michigan Department of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Harper v. Virginia Department of TaxationSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Munoz v. City of Union CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Progressive West Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Mt. Hawley Insurance v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.