A. Before the establishment of the public safety personnel retirement system, municipal firemen and policemen, employees of the Arizona highway patrol and other public safety personnel in the state of Arizona were covered under various local, municipal and state retirement programs. These heterogeneous programs provided for wide and significant differentials in employee contribution rates, benefit eligibility provisions, types of benefit protection and benefit formulas.
B. In order to provide a uniform, consistent and equitable statewide program for public safety personnel who are regularly assigned hazardous duty in the employ of the state of Arizona or a political subdivision thereof, this retirement system was created effective as of July 1, 1968, as an amendment to and continuation of three prior systems. Groups of employees covered under the three prior systems as of June 30, 1968, and the assets and liabilities accumulated thereunder for such employees, are transferred with prior service credits to this retirement system as of the effective date, and both they and their employers shall be required to make stipulated contributions to support the system's benefit structure on a sound actuarial basis. Future employees in such groups shall commence participation in, and contributions to, the system immediately on commencement of covered employment.
C. The provisions of this system shall not be construed to authorize the granting of any retirement benefits to persons who are retired as of the effective date of this article, except as described in sections 38-849 and 38-853.
D. Additional eligible groups of public safety personnel will participate in the system pursuant to election by their employer for such coverage under an appropriate joinder agreement.
E. The public safety personnel retirement system is a jural entity that may sue and be sued.
Notes of Decisions
Koelsch v. Koelsch, 713 P.2d 1234 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, A.R.S. § 38-841 through -855, he was eligible to retire and receive a monthly pension benefit after twenty years of service.”
Loftus v. Arizona State Univ. Pub. Saf. Pers. Ret. Sys. Local Bd., 255 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 38-841 (2011). Approximately 13 years before Loftus became an ASU police officer, the Arizona Board of Regents, acting for ASU, became a participating employer in the System pursuant to a joinder agreement.”
Stokes v. Stokes, 694 P.2d 1204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The old police retirement plan of which A.R.S. § 9-931 was a part was subsequently subsumed by the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.”
McClead v. Pima Cnty., 849 P.2d 1378 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 38-841 to -858. PSPRS has never received any appropriations from the Arizona treasury.”
Rochlin v. State, 540 P.2d 643 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 2× “The action questioned the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 38-841 et seq., the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.”
Matos v. City of Phoenix, 859 P.2d 748 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 38-841 through 38-859. Based on this policy, the city informed both Matos and Daye in June 1988 that they would not be allowed to continue in their positions as call-back officers and ordered them to return to patrol duty.”
Norton v. Arizona Dep't of Pub. Saf. Local Ret. Bd., 723 P.2d 652 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-841 et seq. In 1972, the LEMSC decided that after December 1,1972, the position of DPS communications technician would no longer qualify for PSPRS membership but would instead be covered by the general Arizona State Retirement System.”
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Pub. Saf. Ret. Local Bd., 151 P.3d 557 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“”) §§ 38-841 et seg. (2001). Although the parties disagree about whether it was ever sent, the Board produced a letter *276 from Morales to Parkinson entitled “Notice of Intent to Terminate” (“Notice”) and dated Friday, February 13.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-841(A) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-841(B) — 7 cases
Loftus v. Arizona State Univ. Pub. Saf. Pers. Ret. Sys. Local Bd., 255 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“See A.R.S. § 38-841 (2011). Approximately 13 years before Loftus became an ASU police officer, the Arizona Board of Regents, acting for ASU, became a participating employer in the System pursuant to a joinder agreement.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-841(D) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.