§ 80.36.230, a statute similar to Wash. Rev.Code § 81.77, but providing the conditions for issuing telecommunication company franchises] does not confer the power to grant monopolies or exclusive rights[,]” and “[t]he Commission therefore lacks the authority under Wash. Rev.Code § 80.36.230 to grant exclusive rights to LECs.” Id. at 1049-50. Moreover, the State of Washington’s Supreme Court held that “the Legislature must expressly grant to the Commission the authority to grant monopolies before the Commission may exercise such rights,” because the Washington State Constitution and ease law “manifest the state’s abhorrence of monopolies.” Id. at 1050; see also California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105, 100 S.Ct. 937, 63 L.Ed.2d 233 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The Legislature of the State of Washington
holding that the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action to be redressable by the court holding that to establish antitrust immunity a challenged restraint must be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy1  and the policy must be actively supervised by the state itself holding that prejudice cannot merely be alleged it must be affirmatively proved holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that the end of a conspiracy must be affirmatively shown