What is marijuana’s legality?

Useful Rulings on Marijuana's Legality

Recent Rulings on Marijuana's Legality

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

    Nov 07, 2019

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

    Oct 31, 2019

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

    Oct 31, 2019

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

    Jun 27, 2019

  • 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

    Jun 04, 2019

  • 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

    Jan 18, 2019

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

    Jul 30, 2018

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

    Apr 27, 2018

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

    Apr 11, 2018

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

    Mar 29, 2018

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

    Mar 28, 2018

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

    Feb 15, 2018

  • 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

    Feb 09, 2018

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

    Feb 09, 2018

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

    Jan 31, 2018

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

    Jan 09, 2018

  • 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

    Jan 09, 2018

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

    Dec 14, 2017

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

    Dec 08, 2017

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS COSMIC MIND ET AL

In that brief, Defendants contend that Proposition D’s vehicle-based definition of “medical marijuana business” is constitutionally defective due to State law presumption from the Vehicle Code and the State’s medical marijuana laws including the Medical Marijuana Program Act (codified as Health and Safety Code, sections 11362.7 through 11362.9 (“MMPA”) and the Medicinal and Adult-Use Regulation and Safety Act (codified as Business and Professions Code, sections 26000 through 26231.2 (“MAUCRSA”). .

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2017

MEDICAL ACCESS CORPORATION VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Further, the Adult Use Marijuana Act does not permit recreational marijuana dispensaries to exist until January 2018. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Second Cause of Action – Injunctive Relief “Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted.” (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.) The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RIC1711410

Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, a license will be required for a business to sell marijuana. See Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26012(a)(1), 26032(a), 26038(a), 26070(a)-(b). However, because licenses will not be issued until January 1, 2018 [Bus. & Prof. Code, §26012(d)], Plaintiff clearly has no present right to distribute non-medical marijuana under the AUMA.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2017

TOM PHAM VS CITY OF BELLFLOWER

Further, the Adult Use Marijuana Act does not permit recreational marijuana dispensaries to exist until January 2018 (at the earliest). The demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained. Second Cause of Action – Injunctive Relief “Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted.” (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.) The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ISMAEL RUIZ VS CITY OF POMONA

In 2003, the California Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMP”), adding Sections 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the Health and Safety Code, which provided limited immunity for qualified patients and primary caregivers to transport, process, administer, delivery, or give away marijuana for medical purposes, as well as for patients and caregivers who collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

GRIZZLY GREEN INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant thus argues Plaintiff would have to satisfy two conditions precedent to operation—the passage of January 2018 and the application for and receipt of a license to operate under The Control, Regulate and tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”). Defendant thus argues a controversy cannot exist and the matter is not ripe for review. Defendant further asserts the first cause of action fails to state sufficient facts.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2017

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.