Cited by

in which we held that a public employer’s promise of a pension to the appellant in that case was binding on the public employer under the principles of promissory estoppel, overruling Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Ass’n, 125 Minn. 174 , 145 N.W.

See, e.g., Fabio, 267 Minn, at 277, d at 262-63; Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Ass’n, 125 Minn. 174, 177 , 145 N.W.

See generally Butler, 283 Minn. at 72 , d at 706 ; Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dep’t Relief Ass’n, 125 Minn. 174, 176 , 145 N.W.

ight is marital property is substantially answered by our recent opinion; in which we held that a public employer’s promise of a pension to the appellant in that case was binding on the public employer under the principles of promissory estoppel, overruling Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Ass’n, 125 Minn. 174 , 145 N.W.

In 1914 this court, in Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Ass’n, 125 Minn. 174 , 145 N.W.

In 1914 this court, in Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Ass'n, 125 Minn. 174 , 145 N.W.

See, also, Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174

The state relies for the most part on the cases of Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , *147 (1914); Hessian v. Ervin, 204 Minn. 287 , Johnson v. State Employees’ Retirement Assn. 208 Minn. 111 , Halek v. City of St.

“* * * That the law in force when the claim to pension arises governs the right to the pension is settled by Gibbs v. Minneapolis F. D. R. Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , , Ann. Cas.

Paul, 227 Minn. 477 , 35 N. W. (2d) 705 (sick leave); Johnson v. State Employees’ Retirement Assn. 208 Minn. 111 , Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303 , 110 N. W. (2d) 1 (pension); Mattill v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 261 Minn. 371 , 112 N. W. (2d) 800 (pension).

This court in Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174, 176 , , Ann. Cas.

The first paragraph of the syllabus is: “The beneficiary has no vested right in a pension granted by government except as payments become due him absolutely under the law.” *115 And in Gibbs v. Minneapolis F. D. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174, 176 , , Ann. Cas.

Aiken v. Timm, 147 Minn. 317 , ; Gibbs v. Minneapolis F. D. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , , Ann. Cas.

That the law in force when the claim to pension arises governs the right to the pension is settled by Gibbs v. Minneapolis F. D. R. Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , , Ann. Cas.

Dodge v. Board of Education, 302 U. S. 74 , 58 S. Ct. 98 , 82 L. ed. 57; Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , , Ann. Cas.

Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , .

By Laws 1913, p. 462, c. 318, approved April 16, 1913, it was provided that the term “widow” should “not include the surviving common-law wife of such fireman or pensioner.” This statute was the subject of consideration in Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174 , .