10F Action 2012 0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

File Number: 12 -343 defenses accorded by the CUA are limited to "patients and primary caregivers" for the possession and cultivation of marijuana]; (6) People v. Urziceanu (2005), 132 Cal.App.4th 747 [California Court of Appeal noting that courts consistently have rejected attempts to broaden the scope of the CUA and the MMPA and recognizing that the CUA did not create a constitutional right to obtain marijuana]; (7) People v. Hochanadel ( 2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1997 [California Court of Appeal holding that the operators of a storefront dispensary which sold marijuana to individuals did not operate within the CUA and the MMPA, and did not constitute a primary caregiver such that it was entitled to protections under the CUA and MMPA]; (8) City of Lake Forest v. Moen et al. (Case No. 30- 2009 - 0029887- CU- MC -CJC) [trial court granting Lake Forest's preliminary injunction and finding that (a) a city's power to enact land use or zoning laws, and a city's enforcement of existing local laws is not preempted by the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act; and (b) under Government Code Section 37100, Lake Forest could not have promulgated local regulations allowing the use, sale or distribution of marijuana because marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Federal Controlled Substances Act]; (9) People v. Kelly (2010), 47 Cal.4th 1008 [California Supreme Court ruling that Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77 which limits the quantity of medical marijuana a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess without a physician's recommendation, unconstitutionally amended the voter - approved Compassionate Use Act, by burdening a qualified patient's defense to criminal charges, as individuals may possess and cultivate any amount of marijuana reasonably necessary for his or her medical condition for purposes of a defense in a criminal case]. (10) City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 892 [California Court of Appeal upheld a local ordinance that banned medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Riverside. This case has since been granted certiorari by the California Supreme Court, and is thus depublished]. (11) City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1413 [California Court of Appeal struck down a local ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Lake Forest. This case has since been granted certiorari by the California Supreme Court, and is thus depublished]. (12) Pack v. Superior Court (City of Long Beach as the Real Party in Interest) (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1070 [California Court of Appeal held that Federal law pre -empts State law related to permitting of dispensaries. This case has since been granted certiorari by the California Supreme Court, and is thus depublished]. (13) County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (2012) Cal.App.LEXIS 772 [Court of Appeal decision struck down a County's ban on dispensaries, in line with the City of Lake Forest and in opposition to the City of Riverside decisions]. At this time, County of Los Angeles is the current law related to a local jurisdiction's ability to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and City of San Leandro Page 4 Printed on 711012012