Santin

Santin v. Cranston

Good Law
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 2123·250 Cal. App. 2d 438·59 Cal. Rptr. 1
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 1967Civ. 11353California2,432 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pierce, J.

Two California National Guard officers (petitioners) retired after 20 years of military service, claimed monthly retirement benefits to be described, were allowed benefits in a lesser amount by respondent Controller, referred their claims to the Board of Control. That board sustained their larger claims but the Controller remained adamant. This proceeding for a writ of mandate in the superior court to compel the Controller to accede resulted in a judgment for the latter. Petitioners appeal.

The controversy involves the applicability of 1961 amendments to Military and Veterans Code sections 228 and 215. Both became operative October 1, 1961, revising a retirement system originating in 1953 and unchanged since then until the 1961 amendment. Because the retirement dates of petitioners were November 30, 1962 (for Santin) and December 31, 1962 (for Galletly) all but a little more than a year of this military service was before the amendment. The effect of the amendment, if applicable, would exclude inactive service in the United States armed forces. Former law counted both active and inactive service.

The questions susceptible to dual statement are: should the Legislature be deemed…

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.