and [(4)] is fairly related to the services provided by the State.’ ” Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle, 160 Wn.2d 32, 48, 156 P.3d 185 (2007) (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 279, 97 S. Ct. 1076, 51 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1977)). “If a local taxing scheme fails any one of these four requirements, it is invalid.” Id. ¶57 The parties disagree whether the first requirement, of a “substantial nexus with the taxing state,” is satisfied. That “substantial nexus” requirement actually involves two separate, though related, nexus requirements: the first concerns the “taxpayer’s [general] business activities within the State,” or general business nexus, and the second concerns the specific transaction at issue, or specific transactional nexus. Gen. Motors, 377 U.S. at 441 (<HOLDING>); Norton, 340 U.S. at 537 (where corporation
recognizing the test for business nexus is distinct from transactional nexus and its test for dissociation recognizing the  logical nexus  test as appropriate recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results and state left questions about how probationers diabetes affected the results holding that jurisdiction exists if either the pluralitys test or kennedys test is met holding that ccmc and its employees were not state actors under either the symbiotic relationship or close nexus test