Heinsma v. City of Vancouver
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.
— In this appeal, we must determine whether the City of Vancouver exceeded authority under article XI, section 11 of the state constitution by extending insurance benefits to the domestic partners of city employees. The appellant, Roni Heinsma, argues that the city abused its discretion under RCW 41.04.180 by expanding the definition of “dependents” to include domestic partners. However, the trial court concluded that the benefits program was constitutional and that the regulation of employee benefits was a matter of local concern. We agree and affirm the decision of the trial court.
FACTS
In…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- City of Pasco v. Public Employment Relations CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Lenci v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
- Childers v. ChildersWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Brown v. City of YakimaWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Burton v. LehmanWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. KirwinWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. KirwinWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Tyma v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.