Garmon preemption doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

Garmon preemption doctrine in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Brown green
scotus · 2008
2 sentences

2015"Garmon pre-emption forbids States to 'regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits."' Chamber of Commerce of US. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 65 , 128 S. Ct. 2408 , 171 L.

2015"Garmon pre-emption forbids States to 'regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits."' Chamber of Commerce of US. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 65 , 128 S. Ct. 2408 , 171 L.

32015–2015
Beaman v. Yakima Valley Disposal, Inc. green
wash · 1991
2 sentences

2010Beaman, 116 Wash.2d at 709 , 807 P.2d 849 .

2010Beaman, 116 Wash.2d at 709 , 807 P.2d 849 .

22010–2010
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan green
arizctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2010In Smith, 203 Ariz. at 178 , 52 P.3d 205 , where the plaintiff alleged wrongful termination for organizing a meeting to discuss working conditions, the court refused to apply the Garmon preemption doctrine because the employer failed to establish that the plaintiff's conduct was arguably subject to the Act.

2010In Smith, 203 Ariz. at 178 , 52 P.3d 205 , where the plaintiff alleged wrongful termination for organizing a meeting to discuss working conditions, the court refused to apply the Garmon preemption doctrine because the employer failed to establish that the plaintiff's conduct was arguably subject to the Act.

22010–2010
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon green
scotus · 1959
1 sentence

2020Under what has become known as the Garmon preemption doctrine, when an activity is arguably subject to section 7 or section 8 of the NLRA, “the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.” Id. at 245 .

12020–2020

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 29u.s.c.157 (6) USC § 29u.s.c.158 (6) USC § 29u.s.c.151-169 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 14.08.120 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 14.08.200 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 14.08.330 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 14.08.340 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27.040 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.01.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.12.130 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.120 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 53.08.220 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 7 (1984–2016) WA 6 (2010–2020) TX 4 (1991–2013) WI 2 (1984–2011) IL 2 (2007–2007) MD 2 (1986–2003) OH 2 (2000–2006) IN 2 (1987–2011)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check