Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, § 60 (2026)

Acceptance of Secs. 56 to 59; minimum period of creditable service

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 60. Sections fifty-six to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law relating to retirement allowances, be in effect in any county, city, town or district which accepted them or accepted corresponding provisions of law prior to January first, nineteen hundred and forty-six, by the retiring authority.

No veteran whose employment first begins after June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, shall be subject to the provisions of sections fifty-six to fifty-nine, inclusive; nor shall any veteran whose employment first began on or before said June thirtieth be subject to said provisions unless at the time of his retirement the total period of his creditable service is at least equal to twice the time he was not in the employ of the commonwealth or of a county, city, town, district, housing authority or redevelopment authority subsequent to the date when his employment by the commonwealth or by a county, city, town, district, housing authority or redevelopment authority first began.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1976–1995 · leading case: Town of Lexington v. Town of Bedford, 393 N.E.2d 321 (Mass. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Town of Lexington v. Town of Bedford, 393 N.E.2d 321 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “Under the Veterans’ Retirement Act, a veteran who entered governmental service before June 30, 1939 (G. L. c. 32, § 60), and who remains in such service for a certain number of years (G.”

Lacouture v. Ret. Bd. of Quincy, 419 N.E.2d 1052 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “There is no definition in G. L. c. 32, § 60, of “employment” as used in that section.”

Cardellicchio v. Bd. of Ret. of Natick, 463 N.E.2d 1174 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “Cardellicchio, for which he was compensated the sum of eighty cents by the town of Natick on April 24, 1939, constitutes “employment” within the meaning of G. L. c. 32, § 60, as amended through St.”

Habeeb v. Ret. Bd. of Quincy, 451 N.E.2d 704 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 4× “The sole issue here is whether G. L. c. 32, § 60, bars the plaintiff, Alexander C.”

Glorioso v. Ret. Bd. of Wellesley, 518 N.E.2d 851 (Mass. 1988). “See G. L. c. 32, § 60. 4 Specifically, reference is made in § 57A to the right of appeal to CRAB provided in G.”

Habeeb v. Ret. Bd. of Quincy, 443 N.E.2d 411 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 2× “The sole issue before us is whether the plaintiff’s service as a private in the Massachusetts National Guard prior to July 1, 1939, qualifies as “employment” within the meaning of G. L. c. 32, § 60, as amended *903 through St.”

Cardellicchio v. Bd. of Ret. of Natick, 443 N.E.2d 412 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 2× “642, 646 (1971), apart from the single issue whether he was in the “employment” of the town of Natick on or prior to June 30, 1939, so that he could avoid the prohibition found in G. L. c. 32, § 60, (as amended through St.”

Nyhan v. Ret. Bd., 655 N.E.2d 382 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “2 The board gave initial approval on June 27, 1991, but reversed itself on September 26, 1991, after receiving a letter (dated August 20, 1991) from the commissioner of the Public Employee Retirement Administration (commissioner), who stated that Nyhan’s application did not…”

Santucci v. Bd. of Selectmen, 342 N.E.2d 722 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). “Rather, their sole legal argument is based upon G. L. c. 32, § 60 (as amended through St.”

Habeeb v. Ret. Bd., 3 Mass. Supp. 35 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1981). · cites it 6× “56, agree that the plaintiff is eligible for such benefits if, but only if, his service as a private in the Massachusetts National Guard from April 30, 1937 to November 12, 1937 constitutes “employment” within the meaning of G.L.c. 32, § 60. Discussion G.L.c. 32, § 58 makes…”

Lochiatto v. Ret. Bd., 505 N.E.2d 207 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “” The court reached its interpretation because of the need for setting a uniform standard which would “not be subject to administrative or judicial ruminations about the regularity or continuity of his work.”

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.