Sprague v. Straub

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that investment of public employee retirement funds in corporate stocks did not violate constitutional stock proscription language under theory that state is merely custodian of funds and therefore holds no proprietary interest in same
• holding that investment of public employee retirement funds in corporate stocks did not violate constitutional stock proscription language under theory that state is merely custodian of funds and therefore holds no proprietary interest in same
• constitutional prohibition of state ownership of corporate stock does not apply to investment of industrial accident commission fund and public employees’ retirement fund, since the state has no proprietary interest in these funds
• the state has no proprietary interest in PERF
• the state has no proprietary interest in PERF
• discussing parallel prohibition of Article XI, section 6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).