2014
Cal Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case On Patient Cultivation Rights
March 26 – In a disappointing setback for Prop 215 patients’ rights, the CA Supreme Court denied review of the Maral v Live Oak appellate decision, which upheld the right of local governments to completely ban personal use cultivation by medical marijuana patients.
2013
May 6 – The California Supreme Court has issued its long-anticipated ruling in the City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center case. “Some counties and cities might consider themselves well suited to accommodating medical marijuana dispensaries, conditions in other communities might lead to the reasonable decision that such facilities within their borders…would present unacceptable local risks and burdens.”
February 6 – The 3rd District Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Tehama county on a challenge to their medical marijuana cultivation ordinance.
January 22, 2013 – The US Court of Appeals has turned down an appeal by the Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis to reschedule marijuana.
2012
December 7 – A California Appellate Court has reversed a trial court decision declaring a child to be a dependent of the court, as well as an order that the father undergo drug testing and parenting courses because of his medical marijuana use.
March 4, 2012 – The legal status of medical cannabis dispensaries has been bolstered by two appellate court rulings in the past week, People v. Colvin and Lake Forest v Evergreen Caregivers.
2011
Oct. 4 – In a ruling with far-reaching implications, an appellate court struck down a Long Beach medical marijuana dispensary licensing ordinance as being contrary to federal law (Pack et al. vs Superior Court of Los Angeles, California 2nd District Court of Appeals, 3rd Division).
August 15 – Orange Co. Superior Court Judge David Chaffee ruled that the city of Anaheim may legally prohibit medical cannabis dispensaries, highlighting the need for a legal medical marijuana distribution system in California.
July 8 – After nine years of regulatory delay, the DEA rejected a petition by a coalition of groups including NORML to reschedule marijuana for medical use. The response came only after advocates sued in federal court for unreasonable delay.
2010
August 18 – In a long-awaited ruling, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Anaheim could not use federal pre-emption as a grounds to ban medical marijuana dispensaries.
January 21 – As expected, in People v. Kelly the court struck down the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Ca Health & Safety code 11362.77 as applied to patients’ right to grow, but upheld their application for other purposes, e.g. as a “safe harbor” guideline for protecting patients from arrest.
2009
September 28 – The 2nd District Court of Appeals upheld an injunction disallowing a medical cannabis dispensary in Claremont. The court ruled that the city could deny a dispensary a business permit on the grounds that no such businesses were authorized under the city’s land use and development code. It left open the possibility of applying for a code amendment.
May 18, 2009 – The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear case #08-887 San Diego County, CA, et al. V. San Diego NORML, et al., leaving in place an appeals court ruling holding that California law trumps federal law over medical marijuana.
2008
November 24, 2008 – In a blow to medical marijuana providers, the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Roger Mentch that defendants are not entitled to a defense as Prop. 215 caregivers if their primary role is only to supply marijuana to patients.
AUGUST 8, 2008 – Last week saw three significant California Appellate Court rulings on medical marijuana, most of them favorable to medical marijuana patients, but one with cautionary implications for “primary caregivers.” The cases are: Counties of San Diego & San Bernardino v San Diego NORML & Wendy Christakes, People v. Windus, and People v Phomphakdy.
The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that employers can drug test and fire workers for using medical marijuana. The court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Gary Ross under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) arguing that he had been wrongfully denied employment by RagingWire Telecommunications on account of testing positive for past use of marijuana on a urine test.
2006
2005
Also see: Landmark CA Criminal Cases