Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission

Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission

895 A.2d 789, 277 Conn. 914, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 74
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMarch 2, 2006
DocketSC 17617
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 895 A.2d 789 (Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 895 A.2d 789, 277 Conn. 914, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 74 (Colo. 2006).

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 92 Conn. App. 712 (AC 26186), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, in the calculation of retirement income, pursuant to the State Employees Retirement Act, accrued vacation time and longevity payments should be counted as additions to ‘base salary’?”

Daniel J. Klau, Richard F. Wareing and Joseph J. Chambers, in support of the petition. Donald, M. Longley, pro se, and Richard K. Greenberg, pro se, in opposition. Decided March 2, 2006

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission
931 A.2d 890 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
895 A.2d 789, 277 Conn. 914, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longley-v-state-employees-retirement-commission-conn-2006.