Re. v. PERS

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 04-03-2013
  • Case #: A148575
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J., for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The Court of Appeals will not directly or indirectly overrule Supreme Court Case Law.

Re challenged the validity of three administrative rules (OAR 459-007-0005(11) and (12);OAR 459-009-0200(2),(3),and (5); and OAR 459-011-0500) all relating to retirement benefits laid out in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Re argued that all of these provisions are prohibited by the Oregon Constitution Article IX sections 10, 11, and 12. The Supreme Court has already declared Article IX sections 10, 11, and 12 void. The Court held that it was not the role of the Court to directly or indirectly overrule Supreme Court case law. Therefore, the Court invoked the rule of necessity, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, and determined that the administrative rules were valid.

Advanced Search