Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGriffin, Thomas S.
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-21T23:21:34Z
dc.date.available2017-12-21T23:21:34Z
dc.date.issued2017-12-21
dc.identifier.citation96 OR. L. REV. 249en_US
dc.identifier.issn0196-2043
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1794/22998
dc.description34 pagesen_US
dc.description.abstractThis Comment helps to frame the history and public policy issues surrounding PERS in Oregon. To be explicit, this is not a political or advocacy piece focused on any specific future changes. Instead, this piece aims to identify how Oregon reached this point with PERS and analyze the Oregon Supreme Court’s rationale in deciding the most recent PERS case: Moro v. State.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Oregon School of Lawen_US
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserved.en_US
dc.subjectSocial Securityen_US
dc.subjectRetirement plansen_US
dc.titleMoro v. Oregon: Overturning Legislative Changes to the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) Leaves Limited Options for a Cash Strapped Stateen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record