Holden v. Strong

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that retirement provisions for public employees are deferred compensation
• holding that retirement provisions for public employees are deferred compensation
• “The complaint in mandamus called upon the court of common pleas to order [the retirement board] to discontinue payments of pension benefits to a (Footnote Continued Next Page
• \[W]e have rejected the view that pension benefits are mere gratuities.... [I]t is the well settled law of this jurisdiction that the nature of retirement provisions ... is that of deferred compensation for services actually rendered in the past.\
• \[W]e have rejected the view that pension benefits are mere gratuities . . . . [I]t is the well settled law of this jurisdiction that the nature of retirement provisions . . . is that of deferred compensation for services actually rendered in the past.\
• concurring opinion of Zappala, J.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).