Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• agreeing that “adding the value of any accrued vacation time to the retiree’s salary . . . effectively [extends] the period of state service on which the retiree’s base salary is predicated beyond the statutorily mandated period of three years”
• “[w]hen general and specific statutes conflict they should be harmoniously construed so the more specific statute controls” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “in certain circumstances, the legislature’s failure to make changes to a long-standing agency interpretation implies its acquiescence to the agency’s construction of the statute” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “an agency’s interpretation of a statute is accorded deference when the agency’s interpretation has been formally articulated and applied for an extended period of time, and that interpretation is reasonable”
• “this court has long adhered to the principle that when a governmental agency’s time-tested interpretation [of a statute] is reasonable it should be accorded great weight by the courts” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “Because there is no logical reason why the legislature would embrace such a policy, we will not lightly presume that it intended to do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).