ENTRY FORM

CALENDAR STATUS: Active
SC Number:
S061452
CA Number:
Case Title:
Everice Moro v. State of Oregon
Date:
10/14/2014
Time:
10:00 AM
Location:
Supreme Court Case 1
Attorneys:
W. Michael Gillette, Leora Coleman-Fire, Sara Kobak, and William B. Crow on behalf of League of Oregon Cities
Lisa M. Freiley, William F. Gary, Sharon A. Rudnick, and Peter F. Simons on behalf of the Oregon School Boards Association, Estacada School District, Oregon City School District 62, Ontario School District, West Linn School District, and Bend School District
Sharon Rudnick on behalf of Association of Oregon Counties
Michael D. Reynolds on behalf of Michael D. Reynolds
George A. Riemer on behalf of George A. Riemer
Wayne Stanley Jones on behalf of Wayne Stanley Jones
Gregory A. Hartman on behalf of Everice Moro, Terri Domenigoni, Charles Custer, John Hawkins,Michael Arken, Eugene Ditter, John O'Kief, Michael Smith, Lane Johnson, Greg Clouser, Brandon Silience, Alison Vickery, and Jin Voek
Keith L. Kutler on behalf of the State of Oregon, Public Employees Retirement Board, Ellen Rosenblum, Public Employees Retirement System, and John Kitzhaber
Eugene J. Karandy, II, William F. Gary, Sharon A. Rudnick, and Rob Bovett on behalf of Linn County, and Beaverton School District
Harry Auerbach and Kenneth A. McGair on behalf of City of Portland
Daniel B. Atchison on behalf of City of Salem
Edward H. Trompke on behalf of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
Comments:
Statement of Issues:
Petitioners are active and retired members of PERS challenging the validity of Oregon Laws 2013, Chapter 53 (SB 822) and Oregon Laws 2013, Chapter 2 (Special Session) (SB 861)).
The issues as framed by the state:
1. Are the cost-of-living (COLA) and tax remedy statutes terms of the “PERS contract”?
2. If the COLA and tax remedy statutes are terms of the PERS contract, do SB 822 or 861 impair those contract terms?
3. If SB 822 or SB 861 impairs the PERS contract, is the impairment substantial?
4. If SB 822 or SB 861 substantially impairs an obligation of the PERS contract, are the reductions in system liabilities and employer contribution rates a significant and legitimate public purpose justifying the impairment?
5. Did the legislature violate any federal or state constitutional provision other than the respective contract clauses, or any other law, when it enacted SB 822 or SB 861?
Justice(s) NOT Participating:
Jack L. Landau


Last Revised: 10/08/2014