CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND NICKERSON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pension Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee was an employee of the City of Hollywood from December 16, 1963 through March 23, 1984. We agree with the City that Ordinance No. 0-2001-03 did not change appellee’s conditions of retirement to allow him to obtain pension benefits when he turned fifty-five. Unlike the provision for a two percent cost of living adjustment, there is no express statement in the ordinance making the other provisions of it retroactive in all situations. Section 2 of the ordinance states that it “shall be effective retroactive to July 1, 1999.” If we were to construe the ordinance as appellee suggests, then this section would be meaningless. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.
STONE, GROSS and STERN, KENNETH D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martone v. State, 922 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…pellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal procedure 3.800(a) motion. The trial court failed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting appellant’s legally sufficient claim. Goldbach v. State, 906 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Torres v. State, 830 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 665 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Thomas v. State, 667 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The state’s attempt to provide such record evidence for the first time in this appeal is improper. Cuevas v. State, 907…