supremacy clause in Washington

2015While the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution provides that United States law is supreme, notwithstanding any contrary state law, see Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 78 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (citing U.S. Const, art.

2015While the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution provides that United States law is supreme, notwithstanding any contrary state law, see Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 78 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (citing U.S. Const, art.

2020There is a general presumption against preemption, “‘unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Goodwin, 127 Wn.2d at 57 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 , 112 S. Ct. 2608 , 120 L.

2020There is a general presumption against preemption, “‘unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Goodwin, 127 Wn.2d at 57 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 , 112 S. Ct. 2608 , 120 L.

1995App. 493, 497 , 730 P.2d 1380 (1987) ("When there are conflicts between the [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and PKPA], the PKPA preempts state law under the supremacy clause; therefore, questions of jurisdiction arising in interstate custody matters must first be decided by reference to the PKPA” (Emphasis added.))).

1995App. 493, 497 , 730 P.2d 1380 (1987) ("When there are conflicts between the [UCCJA and PKPA], the PKPA preempts state law under the supremacy clause; therefore, questions of jurisdiction arising in *198 interstate custody matters must first be decided by reference to the PKPA” (emphasis added))). 1 The relevant portions of the PKPA read as follows: (a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms . . . any child custody determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State. (b) As used in this section, the term— (3) “

1991Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 204 , 43 L.

1991Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 204 , 43 L.

2020McKee v. AT &T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 387 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008).

2012Under the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause, 16 “state laws are not superseded by congressional legislation unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 387 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008) (emphasis added).

2020McKee v. AT &T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 387 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008).

2012Under the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause, 16 “state laws are not superseded by congressional legislation unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 387 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008) (emphasis added).

2006This contention is without merit. ¶ 14 Supremacy Clause analysis "`starts with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.'" State v. Grimes, 111 Wash.App. 544, 550-51 , 46 P.3d 801 (2002) (quoting Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Eggert, 129 Wash.2d 17, 23-24 , 914 P.2d 737 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2006Grimes, 111 Wn.

1999Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 590 , 99 S. Ct. 802 , 59 L.

1999Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 590 , 99 S. Ct. 802 , 59 L.

1996Rose, 106 Wash.2d at 423-24 , 721 P.2d 969 .

1996Rose, 106 Wash.2d at 423-24 , 721 P.2d 969 .

1980Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 340-41 , 4 L.

1980Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 *717 Wheat.) 304, 340-41, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958); Scruggs v. Rhay, 70 Wn.2d 755, 760 , 425 P.2d 364 (1967).

1980Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 *717 Wheat.) 304, 340-41, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958); Scruggs v. Rhay, 70 Wn.2d 755, 760 , 425 P.2d 364 (1967).

1980Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 *717 Wheat.) 304, 340-41, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958); Scruggs v. Rhay, 70 Wn.2d 755, 760 , 425 P.2d 364 (1967).

1980Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 *717 Wheat.) 304, 340-41, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958); Scruggs v. Rhay, 70 Wn.2d 755, 760 , 425 P.2d 364 (1967).

1980Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 *717 Wheat.) 304, 340-41, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958); Scruggs v. Rhay, 70 Wn.2d 755, 760 , 425 P.2d 364 (1967).

1980Ms. Bazan argues that we should reassess our decisions in Burns v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 20 Wn.

1980Ms. Bazan argues that we should reassess our decisions in Burns v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 20 Wn.

2024There is “no simple test for ascertaining whether an institution is so closely related to governmental activity as to become a tax-immune instrumentality.” Dep’t of Emp’t v. United States, 385 U.S. 355, 358-59 , 87 S. Ct. 464 , 17 L.

2024There is “no simple test for ascertaining whether an institution is so closely related to governmental activity as to become a tax-immune instrumentality.” Dep’t of Emp’t v. United States, 385 U.S. 355, 358-59 , 87 S. Ct. 464 , 17 L.

2024Today, the supremacy clause prohibits only those taxes laid directly on the federal government or on an entity “so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities.” New Mexico, 455 U.S. at 735 .

2021Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 121 , 744 P.2d 1032 (1987). 7 A. Garmon holds that state law claims are preempted when they involve conduct “arguably” protected under section 7 Congress has the power to preempt state law based on the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution.

2020The order that transfers, divides, or distributes Social Security benefits in violation of the Supremacy clause, federal preemption principles, and the Social Security Act is void.7 7 This case is distinguishable from cases such as In re Marriage of Brown, 98 Wn.2d 46 , 653 P.2d 602 (1982), and In re Marriage of Weiser, ___ Wn.

2020The order that transfers, divides, or distributes Social Security benefits in violation of the Supremacy clause, federal preemption principles, and the Social Security Act is void.7 7 This case is distinguishable from cases such as In re Marriage of Brown, 98 Wn.2d 46 , 653 P.2d 602 (1982), and In re Marriage of Weiser, ___ Wn.

2018Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 417 , 93 S. Ct. 590 , 34 L.

2018Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 417 , 93 S. Ct. 590 , 34 L.

2016Hillman v. Maretta, _ U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1943, 1949 , 186 L.

2016Hillman v. Maretta, _ U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1943, 1949 , 186 L.

2015Because of this, and because the applicable statutory limitation period had expired at the time that Yoon moved for summary judgment, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling on Yoon’s motion. 4 ¶9 “A trial court’s denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the appellate court engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court.” Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 175 Wn.2d 402, 407 , 282 P.3d 1069 (2012).

2015Because of this, and because the applicable statutory limitation period had expired at the time that Yoon moved for summary judgment, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling on Yoon’s motion. 4 ¶9 “A trial court’s denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the appellate court engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court.” Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 175 Wn.2d 402, 407 , 282 P.3d 1069 (2012).

2015Arizona v. United States, _U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500-01 , 183 L.

2015Arizona v. United States, _U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500-01 , 183 L.

2015App. 848, 853 , 10 P.3d 1079 (2000). f 75 The supremacy clause in the United States Constitution gives the federal government the power to preempt state law.

2015Broad v. Mannesmann Anlagenbau, AG, 141 Wn.2d 670, 674-75 , 10 P.3d 371 (2000) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 , 108 S. Ct. 2104 , 100 L.

2015Broad v. Mannesmann Anlagenbau, AG, 141 Wn.2d 670, 674-75 , 10 P.3d 371 (2000) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 , 108 S. Ct. 2104 , 100 L.

2012We hold that federal preemption is not clear and manifest here. ¶19 KCU argues that the presumption against preemption does not apply here because there has been a “ ‘history of significant federal presence’ in national banking.” Br. of Appellant at 27 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bank of Am. v. City of San Francisco, 309 F.3d 551 , 559 (9th Cir. 2002)).

2010Bravo, 125 Wn.2d 745 , is inapposite.