Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,783 chars

Sound Energy, Inc., 176 Wn.2d 909, 922, 296 P.3d 860 (2013). Summary judgment is

2
Filo Foods also alleged that Proposition 1 was invalid because it involves administrative
rather than legislative matters, conflicts with standing requirements, and violates the
subject-in-title rule. The trial court rejected these challenges. Filo Foods ultimately
sought cross review of all rulings against it, but neither it nor the Port of Seattle present
arguments relating to the subject-in-title rule, third-party standing doctrine, or the
administrative nature of Proposition 1. These issues are therefore regarded as abandoned.

Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

proper when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR 56(c). 3

Filo Foods challenges the validity of Proposition 1 on several grounds. First,

Filo Foods argues that Proposition 1 is procedurally invalid in its entirety because it

violates the single-subject rule. We hold that Proposition 1 does not violate the

single-subject rule. Second, Filo Foods contends that under state law, Proposition 1

may not be applied at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. We conclude that

Proposition 1 can be applied at the airport because there is no indication that it will

interfere with airport operations. Third, Filo Foods argues that federal law preempts

Proposition 1, in whole or, alternatively, in part. We conclude federal law does not

preempt Proposition 1 in whole or in part. Finally, Filo Foods argues that Proposition

1 violates the dormant commerce clause; we conclude that it does not. Thus, we find

Proposition 1 valid in its entirety.