Court Opinion

ID: 9558975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:45.107932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:41.167631
License: Public Domain

Maupin, J.,
dissenting:
The legislature enacted former A.B. 820 after appellants’ public service as legislators was concluded. They may not, as a matter of law, claim to have relied upon the pension increase as a condition of their respective public services.
It is reliance that gives life to the doctrine that is most eloquently articulated by the majority opinion. This completely unique situation does not implicate that doctrine. The legislature intended to void the pension increase in its entirety and appellants lost nothing in the process.
I further agree with Justice Young that no constitutional violation of appellants’ vested rights occurred.