Legal Opinion

Faulkenbury v. Teachers' & State Employees' Retirement System

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 11, 1997No. 109PA96PublishedCited by 87 opinions

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

  1. United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Bridges Ex Rel. City of Charlotte v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Horner v. Chamber of CommerceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by87 opinions

  1. Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of NCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
  3. Richardson v. Bank of America, N.A.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  4. Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2014
  5. Marzec v. NyeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API