7 results for 'cat:"Civil Procedure" AND cat:"Pensions"'.
J. Pedersen finds that the lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee pension system in this suit challenging the constitutionality of certain changes to the retired officers association's pension plan. Contrary to the association's argument on appeal, the changes did not violate Section 66 of the state constitution. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Pedersen, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 05-22-00644-CV, Categories: civil Procedure, Constitution, pensions
J. Osteen dismisses the remaining claims, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, brought by a former employee who says he was cheated out of his pension after his employer merged with another, larger firm. The entities the retiree sues are not proper parties to his ERISA claims.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Osteen, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv274, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: civil Procedure, pensions, Jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Viramontes finds that the trial court properly denied a former city employee's petition to regain the forfeited part of her pension. She forfeited some of her benefits when she pleaded no contest to felony misappropriation of public funds. The plea was a conviction for the purposes of the forfeiture statute because she admitted to every element of the charged felony. Statute is clear that a subsequent reduction to a misdemeanor, which was part of her plea agreement, has no effect on the forfeiture. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Viramontes, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: B317848, Categories: civil Procedure, pensions
J. Long affirms a family court ruling that distributes 50% of a retired government employee’s pension benefits, financial assets and property to his ex-wife, further holding that the trial justice did not err by sanctioning him $50,000, ordering a $16,000 credit to his former spouse and rejecting as baseless his assertions of a “double-standard” by the lower court. The ex-husband does not include any legal basis for his arguments. “Simply stating that the trial justice made a mistake does not amount to a legal argument.”
Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court, Judge: Long, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 21-19, Categories: civil Procedure, pensions, Property