Schrom v. Board for Volunteer Fire Fighters
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*22¶1 Patricia Schrom and Jane Bloomfield (respondents)1 have been active volunteer members in their respective fire departments since 1961 and 1973, respectively. However neither respondent’s duties include actively fighting fires or training to fight fires. At issue is whether they qualify for pension benefits under chapter 41.24 RCW, commonly known as the volunteer fire fighters’ and reserve officers’ relief and pensions act (the Act). We hold they do not and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.
Sanders, J.
FACTS
|2 Most of the findings of fact rendered at…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. J.P.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Tapper v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Restaurant Development, Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Restaurant Development, Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- McClarty v. Totem Elec.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
- McClarty v. Totem ElectricWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- Wright v. DAVE JOHNSON INS. INC.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Sheehan v. SOUND TRANSIT AUTH.Washington Supreme Court · 2005
- Doty v. Town of South PrairieWashington Supreme Court · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.