Faulkenbury v. Teachers' & State Employees' Retirement System
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Justice.
The principal question raised by this appeal is whether a change in the law, which reduced plaintiffs’ disability retirement payments, violates Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides in part: “No state shall. . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligations of contracts.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 10. In order to resolve this question, we must first determine whether there was a contract. If there was a contract, we must determine whether the contract was impaired. Finally, we must determine whether the impairment was reasonable and necessary…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- Bridges Ex Rel. City of Charlotte v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Horner v. Chamber of CommerceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by87 opinions
- Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of NCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
- Richardson v. Bank of America, N.A.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2014
- Marzec v. NyeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.