Sylvestre v. Minnesota
Minnesota Supreme Court
214 N.W.2d 658 (1973)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Prior to 1967, Minnesota law promised judges that, upon retirement, they would receive pensions equal to half the salary paid to sitting judges. Statutes enacted in 1967 and 1969, however, limited retired judges to a pension equal to half the salary paid to sitting judges at the time of their retirement. Six judges (plaintiffs) sought a declaratory judgment that the new statutes did not affect their pensions. Four of these judges had retired prior to the new legislation. One, Harold Flynn, retired after the statutes took effect. Another, J.K. Underhill, elected retirement before the statutes took effect, but continued working until after they took effect. The trial court ruled that the new statutes did not affect the pensions of judges who had elected to retire before the effective date of the statutes, but did apply to the pensions of judges electing retirement after the effective date. Of the six judges who sued the state, only Judge Flynn would have his pension affected. The judges appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Knutson, C. J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
