{
  "id": 3530219,
  "name": "CHARLES MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND OF THE CITY OF STERLING, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murray v. Board of Trustees",
  "decision_date": "1985-06-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201484\u20140696",
  "first_page": "918",
  "last_page": "920",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "133 Ill. App. 3d 918"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 4316,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "sha256": "18de5560f0525aee8a00f12444fe50fff8bb82fd0dbc949b05d03f26d8e8037a",
    "simhash": "1:9a2777f38f1a271e",
    "word_count": 709
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:42:49.711724+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND OF THE CITY OF STERLING, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal arises from an administrative action before the board of trustees of the police pension fund of the city of Sterling (defendant), in which the board authorized payment of a regular pension to Charles Murray (plaintiff). The regular pension authorized was based upon $16,155, which the board determined was the \u201csalary attached to the rank\u201d of lieutenant for the one year preceding the date of plaintiff\u2019s retirement. Plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review of the board\u2019s decision, alleging that the \u201csalary attached to the rank\u201d of lieutenant should have been based upon the salaries actually paid to the two police lieutenants then serving on the force rather than determining the \u201csalary\u201d from the \u201ccompensation schedule\u201d adopted by the city of Sterling. The circuit court of Whiteside County dismissed the complaint for administrative review, and plaintiff appeals.\nThe sole issue before us on appeal is whether the board erred by authorizing the regular pension based upon the compensation schedule adopted by the city of Sterling. We find that the board did not err in its decision.\nSection 3 \u2014 111 of the Pension Code states in pertinent part:\n\u201cAny policeman who has creditable service of 20 years or more and has reached age 50 and who is no longer in the service as a policeman, shall be entitled to a yearly pension equal to % of the salary attached to the rank he held on such police force for 1 year immediately prior to his retirement ***.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 1081/2, par. 3-111.)\nPlaintiff became disabled in 1972 and has been receiving a disability pension pursuant to section 3 \u2014 114 of the Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 1081/2, par. 3 \u2014 114) from 1972 to 1983. Plaintiff received $402.07 per month based upon the $804.14 monthly salary plaintiff received the year before he became disabled. In 1983, plaintiff reached the age of 50 and applied for a regular pension as authorized by section 3 \u2014 114. The pension board authorized monthly payments of $673.13 based upon the $16,155 from the compensation schedule for the city of Sterling for policemen with the rank of lieutenant.\nPlaintiff argues that the \u201csalary attached to the rank\u201d of lieutenant should be based upon actual salaries currently being paid to policemen with the rank of lieutenant in the city of Sterling rather than basing the \u201csalary attached to the rank\u201d upon the compensation schedule. The two lieutenants in active duty in Sterling received approximately $27,000 per year. Plaintiff argues that the board\u2019s action is an attempt to freeze benefits at the level in existence in 1972. However, this argument does not take into account the fact that plaintiff\u2019s disability pension was based upon a $9,649.88 yearly salary, while the regular pension payments authorized by the board are based upon a $16,155 yearly figure. This increase in base salary reflects an adjustment for the cost of living, but not for merit raises based upon job performance as would be reflected had the board used the actual salary figure of $27,000. Both parties agree that there are no cases on point. Furthermore, the cases cited by plaintiff basically pertain to contributions to the pension fund, which must be based upon actual salary, including merit raises.\nWe do not find these cases analogous to the case before us, and we agree with defendant that the \u201csalary attached to the rank\u201d of lieutenant, in a case such as this when an officer has been receiving a disability pension for in excess of 10 years, must reflect cost of living increases but should not be based upon salaries of officers in active duty that have received merit increases for job performance over the same period of time.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court of Whiteside County dismissing the complaint for administrative review.\nAffirmed.\nHEIPLE, P.J., and SCOTT, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard A. Palmer, of Ward, Murray, Pace & Johnson, P.C., of Sterling, for appellant.",
      "Kennard J. Besse, of Besse, Frye, Arnold, Brooks & Miller, P.C., of Sterling, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND OF THE CITY OF STERLING, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201484\u20140696\nOpinion filed June 11, 1985.\nRichard A. Palmer, of Ward, Murray, Pace & Johnson, P.C., of Sterling, for appellant.\nKennard J. Besse, of Besse, Frye, Arnold, Brooks & Miller, P.C., of Sterling, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0918-01",
  "first_page_order": 940,
  "last_page_order": 942
}