The following excerpt is from Hawai'I Papaya Indus. Ass'n v. Cnty. of Haw., No. 14-17538 (9th Cir. 2016):
state." Richardson v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193, 1209 (Haw. 1994). Courts frequently treat this test as involving several overlapping elements, including showings that (1) the state and local laws address the same subject matter; (2) the state law comprehensively regulates that subject matter; and (3) the legislature intended the state law to be uniform and exclusive. However, as is true of our federal preemption analysis, the "critical determination to be made" is "whether the statutory scheme at issue indicate[s] a legislative intention to be the exclusive legislation applicable to the relevant subject matter." Pac. Int'l Servs. Corp. v. Hurip, 873 P.2d 88, 94 (Haw. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.