Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

201-212 of 212 results

DOE WOLFF VS. MT. DIABLO U.S.D

Discussion AR 3320 and BP 3320 There are two sections of the Government Code (§§ 905(m) and 935), along with BP 3320 and AR 3320, that provide the starting point for the Court’s analysis.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2016

ANNICA HAGADORN VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

Local Rule 1.12 (B) and Government Code 68086. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IRVIN VS. CONTRA COSTA

Government Code section 31760.3 Government Code section 31760.3 is also instructive. That section requires a member to notify a current spouse when making elections that impact the member’s benefits. But it does not require such notice when the parties have executed a marriage settlement agreement that resolves community property interests.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2016

TAITAI VS CITY OF PORT HUENEME

By analogy, pension benefits are akin to unemployment benefits. The plaintiff in Nasarwi, similar to the Plaintiffs in our case, was not seeking payment of pension funds, but damages for wrongdoing with regard to the pension. The same could be said here: Ps seek damages for discrimination/harassment concerning their efforts to seek unemployment benefits. A tort claim was necessary because the claim against the City is not for the failure of the City pay unemployment benefits.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WALGREN VS VINTAGE SR MANAGEMENT ET AL

(2) Whether the defendant's conduct caused one or more senior citizens or disabled persons to suffer: loss or encumbrance of a primary residence, principal employment, or source of income; substantial loss of property set aside for retirement, or for personal or family care and maintenance; or substantial loss of payments received under a pension or retirement plan or a government benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2016

MULLEN & HENZELL ET AL VS JEFFREY C NELSON ET AL

Interference claims based upon opposition to land use determinations by local government are claims covered by the anti-SLAPP statute. (City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 372-375.) The court determines that Law Firm has met its burden of establishing that the gravamen of the fifth cause of action arises from protected activity within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2016

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DARRELL WILLIAMS VS. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES INC

Local Rule 9.06(B) and Government Code 68086. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2014

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FRANCES RYAN VS. PHILLIP B RYDER

Local Rule 9.06(B) and Government Code 68086.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2013

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SANT PALLAN VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) 473 U.S. 172, two threshold requirements must be satisfied before a plaintiff may challenge a land use decision under federal law: (1) plaintiff must demonstrate he received a final decision regarding the application of the challenged regulations to the property at issue from the government entity charged with implementing the regulations, and (2) sought compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2011

IRENE KOULIKOV VS. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The demurrer is also sustained on the grounds the Plaintiff has failed to allege that she complied with the Government Claims Act by presenting a claim to SCERS within six months of the date of the alleged breach of contract. (Govt. Code §911.2(a).) Plaintiff contends she was not required to file a tort claim prior to filing this action under the exception contained in Govt Code §905(f) for "[a]pplications or claims for money or benefits under any public retirement or pension system."

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NESSIM VS. BOARD OF RETIREMENT

The issues, and the law, differ in workers' compensation claims and disability pension claims, and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board and the pension board exist for different reasons and to achieve independent objectives. (Garrick v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 243, 246.) More specifically, "a WCAB proceeding decides whether the employee suffered any job-related injury.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2010

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITIBANK VS DORIS A GOULD

, pension, disbility, death benefit, self -employed plans and IRAs]); d) CCP § 704.020 (exemption for household furnishings ordinarily used in the debtor's household at the principal place of residence) ; e) CCP §704.030 (exemption for materials for repair or improvement of residence); f) CCP §703.140(b)(exemption applicable to federal bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2009

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.