§Why CasetextPricing

CAL FIRE LOCAL 2881 v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Intervener and Respondent, State of California, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

3 Cited authorities

  1. Marin Ass'n of Pub. Emps. v. Marin Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n

    2 Cal.App.5th 674 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 18 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that California Supreme Court authority such as Allen v. Board of Administration 34 Cal.3d 114, 120, 192 Cal.Rptr. 762, 665 P.2d 534, which used the term "must" rather than "should," was not meant to "introduce an inflexible hardening of the traditional formula for public employee pension modification. Consequently, we do not deem ourselves bound by expressions in Court of Appeals opinions ... reiterating the ["must"] language"

  2. Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.5th 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 9 times   4 Legal Analyses

    A141913 01-08-2018 ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSN. and Bd. of the Alameda County Employees' Retirement Assn. et al., Defendants and Respondents; Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 et al., Interveners ; Building Trades Council of Alameda County et al., Interveners and Appellants. Isaac S. Stevens, Sacramento, Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Associates, Timothy K. Talbot, Rockne A. Lucia

  3. Allen v. Board of Administration

    34 Cal.3d 114 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 29 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Allen, retired former legislators or their surviving spouses maintained that they were entitled to the benefit of legislation passed after their retirement even though the legislation stated that the increased salaries could not be used as a basis for calculating retirement benefits for any legislators who retired prior to the amendment.