The primary question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court properly held that defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in interpreting the pension plan and amendment No. 5 as limited to a case involving temporary interruption of employment and not, as plaintiff contended, a permanently disabling condition with no return to the status of employee thereafter. We conclude that the decision of the trial court was correct. The judgment declaring that plaintiff...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
