Applicant for retail license to sell marijuana within unincorporated county brought declaratory judgment action against county, alleging that state law legalizing recreational marijuana preempted a county ordinance that banned the retail sale of recreational marijuana.
The Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of county. Applicant appealed and also filed appeal in a related land use case.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Ordinance did not prohibit what state law permitted, as element in determining whether ordinance irreconcilably conflicted with state law and thus was preempted by it;
- Ordinance did not thwart the legislative purpose of state law, as element in determining whether ordinance irreconcilably conflicted with state law and thus was preempted by it;
- Ordinance did not exercise authority reserved by state law, as element in determining whether ordinance irreconcilably conflicted with state law and thus was preempted by it;
- State law did not expressly preempt ordinance; and
- State law did not impliedly preempt ordinance.