McCourtney

McCourtney v. Cory

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 3d 431·176 Cal. Rptr. 639·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2066
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 2, 1981Civ. 58869California3,632 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fleming, J.

Plaintiffs, who are surviving spouses of deceased judges, obtained a declaratory judgment from the superior court against the Controller of the State of California to require payment for life of their allowances as surviving spouses, even though the provisions of the Judges’ Retirement Law which authorized their allowances specify termination of the allowances on remarriage. Plaintiffs successfully argued that because other provisions of the Judges’ Retirement Law authorize allowances for other classes of surviving spouses for life, termination of their spousal allowances on remarriage is an invalid discrimination against marriage and a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. Defendant Controller has appealed.

The evolution of the Judges’ Retirement Law (Gov. Code, § 75000 et seq.) falls into three phases.

1. In 1953 the present Judges’ Retirement Law was adopted, which provided an allowance for a retiring or disabled judge of half the salary of his office. (Gov. Code, § 75032.) No allowance was provided for a surviving spouse. Later that year a provision was added allowing a retiring or disabled judge to apply…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.