Michael Landers, David Guthrie, Kenneth Johnson, and J.w. Looney, Appellants v. Gail H. Stone, Executive Director Of…

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment upholding statutory provisions that forfeit judicial-retirement benefits when an eligible judge continues serving after age seventy. It held that the provisions neither add a qualification for judicial office nor violate equal protection, and it rejected the due-process and constructive-discharge claims. Justice Danielson, joined by Chief Justice Brill, dissented on the constitutional and equal-protection issues; Chief Justice Brill separately argued that the forfeiture was impermissible, while Justices Baker and Hart concurred on narrower or alternative grounds.