U.S. Supreme Court,
Government,
Constitutional Law,
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Sep. 25, 2019
Definitional theft as government policy? Not so fast
It should have come as no surprise when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals looked askance on a definitional game played by the state of Washington. The state simply “skimmed” — to use the vernacular — daily interest that should have been earned by members of the state’s teacher retirement fund.
Michael M. Berger
Senior Counsel
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4185
Fax: (310) 996-6968
Email: mmberger@manatt.com
USC Law School
Michael M. Berger is senior counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, where he is co-chair of the Appellate Practice Group. He has argued four takings cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.
TAKINGS TALK
It is hard to improve on the U.S. Supreme Court's words in United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 26 (1977): "complete deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate because the State's self-interest is at stake. A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money." Thus, it should have come as no surprise when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals l...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In