ENDSLEY v. PERA

3 Citing cases

  1. Taylor v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n

    189 Colo. 486 (Colo. 1975)   Cited 17 times

    . ." As was noted in Endsley v. Public Employees' Retirement Association, 33 Colo. App. 416, 520 P.2d 1063 (1974), ambiguities appearing in statutes regulating pension and retirement funds are construed favorably toward the employee. Petitioner is therefore entitled to avail herself of the option provided by the 1973 amendment and, upon compliance with its requirements, have her pension benefits computed on the basis of twenty years of service as a state employee.

  2. Aurora v. Ackman

    738 P.2d 796 (Colo. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    Yet, any ambiguities appearing in statutes regulating pension and retirement funds must be construed favorably toward the employee. Taylor v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n, 189 Colo. 486, 542 P.2d 383 (1975); Endsley v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n, 33 Colo. App. 416, 520 P.2d 1063 (1974). Likewise, a construction of a statute which renders that statute constitutionally valid is to be accepted over one which would require it to be declared invalid.

  3. TAYLOR v. PERA

    35 Colo. App. 9 (Colo. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    Endsley v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n., 33 Colo. App. 416, 520 P.2d 1063. [1] Under long-established principles, there is a presumption that statutes "shall be construed prospectively unless a contrary intention is clearly manifest." Curtis v. McCall, 79 Colo. 122, 244 P. 70.