Flisock v. State, Division of Retirement & Benefits

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that we may defer to agency's interpretation of statute where undefined or ambiguous terms appear in statutory language
• holding that statutory interpretation begins with language of statute
• stating that vested rights protected by the Alaska Constitution `\necessarily include . . . the dollar amount of the benefits payable'\ (citation omitted)
• holding teacher with contributions in TRS had right to benefits calculated according to law in existence when employment began
• noting that “legislative history of the 1982 amendments is of little help in determining the law in 1969” (emphasis in original)
• holding claimant was not entitled to agency's mistaken application of statutory provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).