Former justice rekindles feud with old high court rival

Monday, Jan. 3, 2000 | 5:01 a.m.

Springer filed a Supreme Court petition complaining that he was paid 20 percent less than his old rival, Justice Cliff Young, from 1997 to 1999 when Springer retired.

Springer asked the high court to "redress the injustice and unequal treatment" by either giving him extra back pay or recovering the added amount paid to Young.

Asked to comment, Young said, "It doesn't sound like it was written by him (Springer). It has better composition than Charlie."

Young, who often tangled with Springer on the court, said he never paid any attention to the pay difference. During his last two years in office, Springer was paid $85,000 a year while Young got $107,600.

The Nevada Constitution prohibits mid-term pay hikes for justices. The raises, if authorized, come when they're re-elected. Since justices have staggered terms, some could get higher pay than others for awhile.

To remedy that, the Legislature had allowed justices who were earning less than the others to be paid for serving on the state Board of Pardons.

But the 1995 Legislature abolished that pay-equalizing gimmick, and also authorized a pay raise for justices elected in 1996.

Young won re-election in 1996 and started collecting higher pay in 1997. But Springer didn't qualify for a raise in 1997 because he hadn't run for a new term.

The result, he said, was a "bizarre" pay inequity in the final two years of his 18 years on the court. Springer added that the arrangement - which affected other jurists besides him - opened the door "to the potential of resentment among judicial colleagues."