# Masse v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, PUB. EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYS.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · July 27, 1981 · 87 N.J. 252

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634585

## Case

- **Full name:** Victor J. Masse, Respondent, v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees’ Retirement System, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 27, 1981
- **Citations:** 87 N.J. 252; 432 A.2d 1339; 1981 N.J. LEXIS 1656
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clifford
- **Judges:** Clifford, Schreiber
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634585

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that "legislative intent that the governmental pension constitutes compensation for services rendered over a period of time has been accorded substantial judicial recognition. ….`[T]he basic philosophy underlying pensions to public officers fluctuates between the ear…
- characterizing the doctrine historically as a “judicially-created rule that automatically imposes an inflexible, arbitrary forfeiture” upon public employees
- noting that legislative inaction “demonstrates nothing more than that subsequent legislatures failed to act”

## Opinion text

*265 CLIFFORD, J.,
dissenting.
The sordid details of the events that led to plaintiff’s guilty plea on two counts of impairing the morals of a minor need not be recounted here. Suffice it to say that the incidents, obviously involving moral turpitude, were far removed from any connection with plaintiff’s public employment.
The facts of this case may engender certain tender mercies in forbearance of a strict rule that non-job-connected crimes of moral turpitude equate with dishonorable service resulting in loss of pension credits earned up to the time of the offending conduct. But for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in the companion case of Proccacino v. State, 87 N.J. 265 (1981), I would leave that major revision of our existing law to the Legislature.
I vote to reverse.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK —6.
For reversal — Justice CLIFFORD — 1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634585. Public record. Not legal advice.