107 So. 3d 379 - Scott v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We stress that the rights provision was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits which accrue for future state service. To hold otherwise would mean that no future legislature could in any way alter future benefits of active employees for future services, except in a manner favorable to the employee. This view would, in effect, impose on the state the permanent responsibility for maintaining a retirement plan which could never be amended or repealed irrespective of the fiscal condition of this state. Such a decision could lead to fiscal irresponsibility. It would also impose on state employees an inflexible plan which would prohibit the legislature from modifying the plan in a way that would be beneficial to a majority of employees, but would not be beneficial to a minority. Since two different plans cannot exist for the same type of employee, the implementation of appellants’ contention would also bind the legislature to this plan for future employees. We find appellants’ contention is not in accordance with the intent of the legislature and conclude that the legislature has the authority to modify or alter prospectively the mandatory, noncontributory retirement plan for active state employees.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 958 F. Supp. 2d 1287 - Taylor v. City of Gadsden

2. “[t]he rights of members of the retirement system established by this chapter shall not be impaired by virtue of the conversion of the Florida Retirement System to an employee non[-]contributory system. As of July 1, 1974, the rights of members of the retirement system established by this chapter are declared to be of a contractual nature, entered into between the member and the state, and such rights shall be legally enforceable as valid contract rights and shall not be abridged in any way.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 958 F. Supp. 2d 1287 - Taylor v. City of Gadsden

3. “the Legislature substantially breached the employees’ contract rights guaranteed by the preservation of rights statute by requiring employee contributions to the FRS and by ehmination of the COLA, and further held that this breach was not justified by the existence of a significant budget shortfall where other, reasonable alternatives existed to preserve the State’s contract with FRS members.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 958 F. Supp. 2d 1287 - Taylor v. City of Gadsden