14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ter Beek v. City of Wyominggreen2 sentences2014See Ter Beek, 495 Mich at 20-21 . 2014See Ter Beek, 495 Mich at 20-21 . | 2 | 2 |
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttlegreen2 sentences2019See MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192, 210-221 ; 870 NW2d 37 (2015). 2016Under the MMMA, though, ‘[tjhe medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of th[e] act.’ ” Hartwick, 498 Mich at 209, quoting MCL 333.26427(a) (alterations in original). 11 Individuals in compliance with the MMMA may claim immunity from arrest and prosecution under § 4, MCL 333.26424, or *377 raise an affirmative defense to prosecution under § 8, MCL 333.26428. | 1 | 6 |
Braska v. Challenge Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2019This Court has noted that the MMMA’s immunity is conditioned on the use of marijuana being in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA and that “to the extent another law would penalize an individual for using medical marijuana in accordance with the MMMA, that law is superseded by the MMMA.” Braska, 307 Mich App at 355 . 2019This argument ignores the salient fact that claimants met the threshold requirements for unemployment benefits and were disqualified only because of their use of medical marijuana. [Braska, 307 Mich App at 358-359 (emphasis added; third alteration in original).] The Braska Court further emphasized that “[b]ut for claimants’ use of medical marijuana, the MCAC would not have disqualified them for unemployment benefits,” and the “disqualification clearly amounted to a penalty imposed on claimants for their medical use of marijuana that ran afoul of the MMMA’s immunity clause.” Id. at 360 . | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2014The Department cites Casias v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 695 F3d 428 (CA 6, 2012), and Beinor v Indus Claim Appeals Office of Colorado, 262 P3d 970 (Colo App, 2011), to further support its argument that the MMMA does not apply to private employers. 2014See Casias, 695 F3d at 436 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
STATE OF MICHIGAN v. McQUEEN
green
2 sentences2019However, MRE 402 provides that relevant evidence may nevertheless be excluded if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “Relevant” evidence is defined as that evidence “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” “Because the MMMA's immunity provision clearly conte 2015In August 2011, this Court issued its decision in Michigan v McQueen, 293 Mich App 644 ; 811 NW2d 513 (2011), aff’d on other grounds 493 Mich 135 (2013), effectively holding that the MMMA does not provide immunity from prosecution with respect to the operation of a medical-marijuana dispensary, because the “medical use” of marijuana permitted under the MMMA does not encompass a “sale” of marijuana. | 3 | 2014–2019 |
State v. McQueen
green
2 sentences2015In August 2011, this Court issued its decision in Michigan v McQueen, 293 Mich App 644 ; 811 NW2d 513 (2011), aff’d on other grounds 493 Mich 135 (2013), effectively holding that the MMMA does not provide immunity from prosecution with respect to the operation of a medical-marijuana dispensary, because the “medical use” of marijuana permitted under the MMMA does not encompass a “sale” of marijuana. 2015In August 2011, this Court issued its decision in Michigan v McQueen, 293 Mich App 644 ; 811 NW2d 513 (2011), aff’d on other grounds 493 Mich 135 (2013), effectively holding that the MMMA does not provide immunity from prosecution with respect to the operation of a medical-marijuana dispensary, because the “medical use” of marijuana permitted under the MMMA does not encompass a “sale” of marijuana. | 2 | 2011–2015 |
Beinor v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
green
2 sentences2014In Beinor, 262 P 3d at 975 , the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff, a medical marijuana user, was not entitled to 7 In addressing whether the MMMA’s immunity clause applied to private employers, the Sixth Circuit interpreted the phrase “including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau. . . ” to be limited in scope to state actors—i.e. business, occupational, or professional licensing boards or bureaus. 2014The Department cites Casias v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 695 F3d 428 (CA 6, 2012), and Beinor v Indus Claim Appeals Office of Colorado, 262 P3d 970 (Colo App, 2011), to further support its argument that the MMMA does not apply to private employers. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Koon
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 4 , quoting MCL 333.26427(b)(4). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Township
green
1 sentence2014The constitutional provision at issue in that case only protected medical marijuana users from the state’s criminal laws, id. at 975 , whereas the MMMA’s immunity clause is much broader, extending to both criminal and civil penalties. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.