Re v. Or. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., A148575.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
| Writing for the Court | WOLLHEIM |
| Citation | 301 P.3d 932,256 Or.App. 52 |
| Parties | Daniel C. RE, Petitioner, v. OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | A148575. |
| Decision Date | 03 April 2013 |
256 Or.App. 52
301 P.3d 932
Daniel C. RE, Petitioner,
v.
OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent.
A148575.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 23, 2012.
Decided April 3, 2013.
Gregory A. Chaimov, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
[301 P.3d 933]
Erin C. Lagesen, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.
Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.
WOLLHEIM, J.
[256 Or.App. 53]Pursuant to ORS 183.400(1), petitioner challenges the validity of three administrative rules of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) that affect retirement benefits of judge members of PERS. The administrative rules are OAR 459–007–0005(11) and (12), regarding the annual earnings credit, OAR 459–009–0200(2), (3), and (5), regarding Oregon Judicial Department contributions on behalf of judge members, and OAR 459–011–0500, regarding the use of unused sick leave to increase judge members' retirement benefits.1 Petitioner argues that the challenged administrative rules are prohibited by the Oregon Constitution Article IX, sections 10, 11, and 12.
As enacted by Oregon voters in 1994, Ballot Measure 8 amended the Oregon Constitution by adding three sections to Article IX: Article IX, section 10, provides, in part, that (1) every governmental employee must contribute six percent of the employee's salary to their retirement plan; (2) effective January 1, 1995, no government employer shall relieve any governmental employee from making the six percent contribution to the employee's retirement plan; and (3) effective January 1, 1995, no government employer shall increase a governmental employee's salary as a result of the employee's six percent contribution to the employee's retirement plan. Article IX, section 11, provides, in part, that no government employer shall guarantee any rate of interest or return in any retirement plan for any governmental employee. Finally, Article IX, section 12, provides, in part, that effective January 1, 1995, no retirement benefits for any governmental employee shall be increased as a result of or due to any unused sick leave. In 1996, the Supreme Court, in Oregon State. Police Officers' Assn. v. State of Oregon, 323 Or. 356, 361, 918 P.2d 765 (1996)(OSPOA), expressly declared Article IX, sections 10, 11, and 12...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar v. State, A158125
..., 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed. 2d 284 (2010), that contention is one for 292 Or.App. 316the Supreme Court. See Re v. PERS , 256 Or. App. 52, 54, 301 P.3d 932 (2013) (explaining that "[i]t is not this court’s role to overrule, directly or indirectly, Supreme Court case law"). Turn......
-
Dep't of Revenue v. New Friends of Beaverton City Library, TC 5311
...body of Oregon Supreme Court decisions that this court, as a lower court, is bound to follow. See, Re v. PERS, 256 Or App 52, 54, 301 P3d 932, rev den, 353 Or 867 (2013) ("It is not this court's role to overrule, directly or indirectly, Supreme Court case law."); State v. Turner, 235 Or App......
-
Boquist v. Dep't of Revenue, TC 5332
...to apply the framework set forth in Bobo, as well as the additional teachings of City of Seattle. See, Re v. PERS, 256 Or App 52, 54, 301 P3d 932, rev den, 353 Or 867 (2013) ("It is not this court's role to overrule, directly or indirectly, Supreme Court case law."); State v. Turner, 235 Or......
-
Hatley v. Umatilla Cnty., 2012017
...precluded by the “invited error” doctrine because that doctrine applies to actions in trial courts, not to administrative proceedings, an [301 P.3d 932]argument we reject. See Lake County v. Teamsters Local Union # 223, 208 Or.App. 271, 278–79, 145 P.3d 187 (2006) (applying the doctrine to ......