Central Frog & Switch Co. v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where amendment or repeal of a COLA is expressly reserved, the legislature may make such changes without violating the contract clause or state constitution
• holding that change in COLA statute did not impair contract rights of retirees
• explaining that COLAs do not “‘induce continued faithful service’ in the same way that a basic pension plan [does]” (quoting Jacoby v. Grays Harbor Chair & Mfg. Co., 468 P.2d 666, 669 (Wash. 1970))
• “It is well settled that retirees are subject to a three-year statute of limitations for actions alleging a breach of pension contracts.”
• “Surely the legislature can make the addition of [a COLA] subject to its right to amend or repeal the program in the future. To say otherwise would strongly disincentivize the legislature from providing additional benefits beyond a basic pension.”
• “Surely the legislature can make the addition of 42 [a COLA] subject to its right to amend or repeal the program in the future. To say otherwise would strongly disincentivize the legislature from providing additional benefits beyond a basic pension.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).