No Rush to Judgment in Judge's Pension Suit

, New Jersey Law Journal


When Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale sued the state last month, claiming the new Pension and Health Care Benefits Act violates the New Jersey constitution, he thought the issue momentous enough to demand special handling by the judiciary. He was, after all, protecting judges' own interests, claiming that requiring them to pay proportionately more for their pension benefits runs afoul of the constitution's mandate that salaries for Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges "shall not be diminished during their term of appointment."

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202511374002

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.