holding that a provision which was adopted after an employee's rights had vested but before employee retired could not lawfully be applied, as the employee's rights were "vested and unqualified" under the previously existing law and "could not be qualified or altered" by a subsequent enactment
How later courts described this case
- holding that a provision which was adopted after an employee's rights had vested but before employee retired could not lawfully be applied, as the employee's rights were "vested and unqualified" under the previously existing law and "could not be qualified or altered" by a subsequent enactment
- holding that public employee who had been separated involuntarily from employment was entitled to "retirement” benefits
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Musmanno:
I dissent on the learned, comprehensive, and authoritative argument of the able Judge Alpern who wrote the opinion for the Court below.