With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". made and fulfilled pursuant to a contract negotiated with a national corporation outside Washington. Id. Because neither class of sales involved orders sent to or fulfilled by a local office or salesperson, this court felt “compelled” to hold that a B&O tax on either class of sales would offend the dormant commerce clause as interpreted by Norton. Id. at 674. We concluded that “such a tax may not be levied upon the proceeds from sales with which the local outlet had nothing to do.” Id. at 675 (emphasis added). We have since clarified the meaning of B.F. Goodrich, explaining that the relevant “local outlet” should not be construed narrowly. Chi. Bridge & Iron Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 98 Wn.2d 814, 833, 659 P.2d 463 (1983). 4 Overruled on other grounds by Tyler Pipe, 483 U.S. at 242-48 (<HOLDING>). 5 See also Williamsburgh Stopper Co. v.

A: holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce
B: holding washingtons tax exemption for multiple activities discriminates against interstate commerce
C: holding that congress may regulate purely local intrastate activities if they are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
D: holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce
B.