Legal Opinion
Police Pension & Relief Board v. McPhail
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided May 4, 1959No. 18,555PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Doyle
Plaintiffs in error were defendants in the district court and will be referred to herein as defendants. They are the members of the Police Pension and Relief Board (of Denver); also named is Thomas G. Currigan, Auditor of the City and County of Denver. The defendants in error were the plaintiffs below and are representatives of a class consisting of all of those retired members of the Police Department of Denver who have served 25 years or more and have satisfied the other requirements of the pension system prior to April 1, 1956, the effective date of the Charter Amendment which would change…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Lynch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Pennie v. ReisSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Abbott v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Bakenhus v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1956
- Allen v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Hill v. DeWittSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
- Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. KeelanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Baker v. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement SystemSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
- Colorado Springs Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 5 v. City of Colorado SpringsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1989
- Board of Trustees of the Police Pension & Retirement System v. KernSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.