preemption clause in Washington

2011PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 355 , 144 P.3d 276 . [10] The court also cited Cherry for "the general proposition that when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply." PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 357 , 144 P.3d 276 .

2011PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 355 , 144 P.3d 276 . [10] The court also cited Cherry for "the general proposition that when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply." PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 357 , 144 P.3d 276 .

2011Power Supply Sys., 111 Wash.2d 424, 430-31 , 759 P.2d 427 (1988); U.S. CONST. *613 art.

2011Power Supply Sys., 111 Wash.2d 424, 430-31 , 759 P.2d 427 (1988); U.S. CONST. *613 art.

1995Cipollone, 112 S. Ct. at 2621 . 2.

1995The United States Supreme Court recently clarified in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., supra, the application of the preemption doctrine to a statute containing an express preemption clause similar to that in FIFRA: When Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that issue, and when that provision provides a "reliable indicium of congressional intent with respect to state authority,” "there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre-empt state laws from the substantive provisions” (Citations omitted.) Ci

2021Following Garmon, this court has stated the preemption standard in terms of whether the activity is “‘potentially subject to federal regulation.’” Beaman, 116 Wn.2d at 704 (quoting Garmon, 359 U.S. at 246 ).

2021Even though we must accept the facts stated in the complaint as true, Garmon emphasizes that the “‘type of conduct’” involved is what determines the preemption analysis. 359 U.S. at 247-48 ; see also Amalg.

2021“Cherry supports the general proposition that when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply.” Id.

2011PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 355 , 144 P.3d 276 . [10] The court also cited Cherry for "the general proposition that when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply." PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 357 , 144 P.3d 276 .

2011Id. at 675, 113 S.Ct. 1732 .

2011Id. at 664-65 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 .

2007Amici rely heavily on Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 , 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992), in which the Court gave a broad interpretation to an identical preemption clause in the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), Pub.L.

2007Amici rely heavily on Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 , 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992), in which the Court gave a broad interpretation to an identical preemption clause in the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), Pub.L.

2007The California court reasoned that although the prevailing wage law was “in a certain sense” “ ‘related to’ [the appellants’] prices, routes and services,.. . the effect is no more than indirect, remote, and tenuous.” Id. at 1189 (citing Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr, NA, 519 U.S. 316 , 117 S. Ct. 832 , 136 L.

2007The California court reasoned that although the prevailing wage law was “in a certain sense” “ ‘related to’ [the appellants’] prices, routes and services,.. . the effect is no more than indirect, remote, and tenuous.” Id. at 1189 (citing Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr, NA, 519 U.S. 316 , 117 S. Ct. 832 , 136 L.

1997Preemption: Lenci v. City of Seattle, 63 Wash.2d 664 , 388 P.2d 926 (1964), cited by appellant, sets forth a preemption test that asks whether the Legislature intended concurrent jurisdiction: the plenary police power in regulatory matters accorded municipalities by Const. Art. 11, § 11, ceases when the state enacts a general law upon the particular subject, unless there is room for concurrent jurisdiction.

1997Preemption: Lenci v. City of Seattle, 63 Wash.2d 664 , 388 P.2d 926 (1964), cited by appellant, sets forth a preemption test that asks whether the Legislature intended concurrent jurisdiction: the plenary police power in regulatory matters accorded municipalities by Const. Art. 11, § 11, ceases when the state enacts a general law upon the particular subject, unless there is room for concurrent jurisdiction.

2021Id. at 248 n.6.

2021Because state courts should not interfere with conduct actually protected by the act, the Court observed that “[c]onsiderations of federal supremacy, therefore, are implicated to a greater extent when labor-related activity is protected than when it is prohibited.” Id. at 200 .

2021Following Garmon, this court has stated the preemption standard in terms of whether the activity is “‘potentially subject to federal regulation.’” Beaman, 116 Wn.2d at 704 (quoting Garmon, 359 U.S. at 246 ).

2020Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1384 v. Kitsap Transit, 187 Wn.

2017The general rule is that an ordinance need not be supported by specific findings: “There is no constitutional rule which requires that [county commissioners] conduct a special investigation or make formal findings before they exercise their police power.” Petstel Inc. v. County of King, 77 Wn.2d 144, 151 , 459 P.2d 937 (1969).

2017The general rule is that an ordinance need not be supported by specific findings: “There is no constitutional rule which requires that [county commissioners] conduct a special investigation or make formal findings before they exercise their police power.” Petstel Inc. v. County of King, 77 Wn.2d 144, 151 , 459 P.2d 937 (1969).

2014Airtouch Commc'ns, Inc., 153 Wn.2d 293,303 , 103 P.3d 753 (2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted); accord Adler v. Fred Lind Manor. 153 Wn.2d 331, 344-45 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004). 4 The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause, which provides, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... , shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. CONST. art.

2014Airtouch Commc'ns, Inc., 153 Wn.2d 293,303 , 103 P.3d 753 (2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted); accord Adler v. Fred Lind Manor. 153 Wn.2d 331, 344-45 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004). 4 The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause, which provides, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... , shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. CONST. art.

2011Id. at 675 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 434 ).

2009E.g., Altria Group, Inc. v. Good , 129 S. Ct. 538 , 543 (2008). 3.

1998Becker v. U.S. Marine Co., 88 Wn.