What is marijuana’s legality?

Useful Rulings on Marijuana's Legality

Recent Rulings on Marijuana's Legality

STEVEN MARCUS VS. DOUGLAS R. MCCAULEY, REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER

In 2003, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). The MMPA decriminalized the collective or cooperative cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. (See Cal.App.4th 1189,1205-1206; Health & Safety Code § 11362.765(a); see also Qualified Patients Assn., pp. 747-748 [discussing Attorney General Guidelines circumscribing the "cooperatives" and "collectives" protected under the MMPA].)

  • Hearing

LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

In November 2016, the California voters passed Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized non-medical adult use of marijuana. In response, the California Legislature adopted new licensing and regulatory requirements governing both medical and non-medical cannabis activities. The legislative enactments are known as the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”). Bus. & Prof. Code §26000 et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JONATHAN SKLAR ET AL VS JASON CHIN ET AL

The Adult use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California and became law on 9 November 2016. (Complaint, ¶18.) The AUMA led to legal recreational cannabis sales in California effective January 2018. (Id.) California allowed existing cannabis businesses to convert from the mutual benefit corporation model to for-profit entities. (Id.)

  • Hearing

TAFT VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEARING ON WRIT OF MANDATE

Under the state licensing scheme, enacted via Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)) and later amended by the Legislature, an applicant is “an owner applying for a state license pursuant to this division.” (Bus. & Prof. C. §26001(c).)

  • Hearing

LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Thereafter, the California Legislature adopted a series of rules and regulations known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) to govern the lawful manufacture and sale of medical marijuana. Health & Safe. Code §11362.5 et seq. In October 2015, the California Legislature adopted and Governor Brown signed into law the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“MMRSA”) further regulating the medical marijuana industry. Health & Safe. Code §11362.769 et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

THE CITY OF BANNING VS CALI EMERALD CARE INC

Code, § 11362.5(d)]; and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which provides guidelines to implement the CUA. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et seq.) In addition, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Proposition 64 (“AUMA”) was recently enacted. Effective June 27, 2017, medical use and adult use were unified into a single regulatory scheme in the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”). (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26000 et seq.) Importantly, Health & Saf.

  • Hearing

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

A [Senate Bill No. 420, enacting the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act], p. 2, §(b)(3) [indicating that the Legislature's intent included to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"]; Exh. B [Assembly Bill No. 266, enacting the 2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation Safety Act], p. 1 [indicating that one of the purposes of the bill was to "promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation"].)

  • Hearing

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

A [Senate Bill No. 420, enacting the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act], p. 2, §(b)(3) [indicating that the Legislature's intent included to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"]; Exh. B [Assembly Bill No. 266, enacting the 2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation Safety Act], p. 1 [indicating that one of the purposes of the bill was to "promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation"].)

  • Hearing

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

A [Senate Bill No. 420, enacting the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act], p. 2, §(b)(3) [indicating that the Legislature's intent included to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"]; Exh. B [Assembly Bill No. 266, enacting the 2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation Safety Act], p. 1 [indicating that one of the purposes of the bill was to "promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation"].)

  • Hearing

ELIZABETH DIANE MCDUFFIE VS CITY OF PASADENA ET AL

McDuffie teaches various classes in many areas of the cannabis industry, including a medical marijuana program for the Department of Social Services. AR 157-58. 5. The Hearing Officer’s Decision At the close of proceeding, the Hearing Officer upheld the citations, based on the facts presented at the hearing. AR 182.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GERMAN MUNOZ, ET AL. VS. TRUMAN WEATHERLY, ET AL.

Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) Defendants’ rely on Health and Safety Code § 11362.765(a) to argue that plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic relations because the statute prevents plaintiffs from earning a profit from a marijuana collective. However, the statute allows for plaintiffs to recoup their out-of-pocket expenses and to take payment for their labor and services. (People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 565.) G.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BOYD V SANTY CRUZ COUNTY AND CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

Therefor summary adjudication is granted as to the Fifth cause of action As to whether the taxes objected to are in conflict with provisions of Compassionate Us Act or Medical Marijuana Program (Opposition p. 15:30-32), neither the MMP nor the CU “grant a ‘right’ of convenient access to marijuana for medical use or override the zoning licensing, and police powers of local jurisdictions” including the right to impose lawfu business and sales taxes. (City of Riverside v.

  • Hearing

RYAN ROYTEN ET AL VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, the Supreme Court of California held that the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”) is invalid to the extent it amends the voter-enacted Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”) by burdening a defense that would be available pursuant to the CUA, but it would be inappropriate to sever the MMP provision creating quantity limits and hence void that provision in its entirety.

  • Hearing

CITY OF COVINA VS COVINA COLLECTIVE 25 CAP

Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, that the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program do not preempt local jurisdictions from regulating the use of their lands. Defendant failed to file any evidence in opposition. Motion is GRANTED. No bond per CCP 995.220(b).

  • Hearing

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS. GRAND COLLECTIVE 30 CAP

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) approved by California voters in November 2016 recognizes local control to regulate or prohibit all outdoor cultivation and all commercial cannabis activities, including dispensaries (B&P §26200). Here Defendants are engaged in the sale of cannabis to the public in violation of Riverside County Ordinances, and such conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society (People vs. Rubin (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1149).

  • Hearing

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS CORONA CANNABIS

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) approved by California voters in November 2016 recognizes local control to regulate or prohibit all outdoor cultivation and all commercial cannabis activities, including dispensaries (B&P §26200). Here Defendants are engaged in the sale of cannabis to the public in violation of Riverside County Ordinances, and such conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society (People vs. Rubin (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1149).

  • Hearing

RYAN ROYTEN ET AL VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

; “Were Plaintiffs in violation of the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program?”; and “Did Plaintiffs fail to timely retrieve seized Marijuana?” Based on this discrepancy, the motion is defective and cannot be granted. The “issues” identified in the separate statement are factual issues, not causes of action. A motion for summary adjudication is only granted “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)

  • Hearing

PETITION OF EL CAJON RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

In Proposition 64, the People enacted the following (emphasis added): The purpose of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RAFHOD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Defendant has enacted business regulations that violate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act that was adopted by California’s voters as Proposition 64. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of its right to operate a commercial marijuana business in light of Proposition 64, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandate to stop the threats to arrest the Plaintiff’s employees.

  • Hearing

RAFKHOD VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Defendant has enacted business regulations that violate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act that was adopted by California’s voters as Proposition 64. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of its right to operate a commercial marijuana business in light of Proposition 64 and injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

KYLE SOMMER VS DAVRON RASHIDOV ET AL

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandate regarding its rights and duties under a Los Angeles City Ordinance affecting Plaintiff’s ability to operate and maintain a marijuana business pursuant to Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and to enjoin the City of Los Angeles from enforcing its ordinances and regulations related to marijuana which are in conflict with state law.

  • Hearing

CANDIDO VASQUEZ VS QUALITY PRODUCTIONS SERVICES INC

In reply, County argues that GEC is incorrect – that in fact the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is at issue in both cases, along with the Medicinal and Adult Use of Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, as well as County cannabis laws.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PEACE LEAF INCORPORATED VS CITY OF POMONA

Plaintiff, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, seeks, inter alia, declaratory relief regarding its rights under Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and the ordinances and regulations of the City of Pomona (“City”) related to the distribution of medical marijuana.

  • Hearing

ENERGY EPT VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM

The regional welfare doctrine does not apply because there is no state or federal constitutional right to cultivate or distribute marijuana, and none was created by Proposition 64 under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The Act specifically authorizes local jurisdictions to ban the same businesses contemplated by the Act, which is what the City has done in adopting Ordinance No. 6409.

  • Hearing

RAFKHOD VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Defendant has enacted business regulations that violate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act that was adopted by California’s voters as Proposition 64. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of its right to operate a commercial marijuana business in light of Proposition 64 and injunctive relief. CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: 1) Declaratory Relief 2) Injunctive Relief RELIEF REQUESTED: Demurrer to each cause of action in Complaint.

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.