Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Alaska, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, No. 3AN-01-06171 Civ. (Alaska Super., April 2, 2002). 12 . Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227, 1231 (Alaska 2003). 13 . McMullen v. Bell, 128 P.3d 186, 190 (Alaska 2006). 14 . Id.; see also Lopez v. Adm'r, Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 20 P.3d 568, 570 (Alaska 2001) ("Questions of law not involving agency expertise are reviewed under the 'substitution of judgment' standard."). 15 . Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). 16 . Lopez, 20 P.3d at 570. 17 . Alyeska Pipeline, 77 P.3d at 1231. 18 . Lopez, 20 P.3d at 570 (citation omitted). 19 . Alaska Const. art. XII, § 7. 20 . Alaska Const. art. I, § 15. 21 . Hammond, 627 P.2d at 1053-55, 1059. 22 . Id. at 1057. 23 . Id.; see also Sheffield, 732 P.2d at 1085 (<HOLDING>). 24 . Hammond, 627 P.2d at 1058-59. 25 . Id. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that costofliving increases are not the result of any postdivorce labor but rather are a means of offsetting the otherwise declining value of retirement benefits after they become fixed (B) holding that retirement benefit increases due to postdivorce promotion were separate property (C) holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed (D) holding that the state cannot make changes to the retirement system that will diminish a members benefit without providing an offsetting advantage (E) holding pension conferred cola was an accrued benefit and not ancillary because it was intended to provide retirement income commenced only at retirement and was a benefit generally transferrable to succeeding employers
Output (English): holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed