Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
St. Louis Police Officers' Ass'n v. Board of Police Commissioners
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided June 30, 2008No. SC 88954Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE,
Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in section I of the principal opinion, but dissent from section II.
*530This case requires the Court to determine whether the Board of Police Commissioners (Board) has provided health insurance coverage to retired St. Louis police officers as required by section 84.160.8(3), RSMo Supp.2006.1 I agree with the principal opinion and Judge Limbaugh’s dissent that the statute requires the Board to provide the police department’s retirees a health insurance plan without charge. I also agree with the principal opinion’s finding…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Metro Auto Auction v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
- Cano v. Travelers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1983
- Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Ltd.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1990
- Zemelman v. Equity Mutual Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- State ex rel. Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. RooneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.