recommendation hearing in California

2018(Citing Environmental Law Foundation , supra , 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 69, fn. 10, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ["fact that the warning language does not specifically indicate that it is referring to a risk created by ... mercury, however, is not in itself a deficiency under the regulations to Proposition 65"].) In drafting the safe harbor warnings, OEHHA considered and rejected a recommendation that the warning provide the names of specific chemicals contained in the product.

2018(Citing Environmental Law Foundation , supra , 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 69, fn. 10, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ["fact that the warning language does not specifically indicate that it is referring to a risk created by ... mercury, however, is not in itself a deficiency under the regulations to Proposition 65"].) In drafting the safe harbor warnings, OEHHA considered and rejected a recommendation that the warning provide the names of specific chemicals contained in the product.

2014The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) (§ 11362.5) “ ‘gives a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes on a physician’s recommendation a defense to certain state criminal charges involving the drug, including possession [citations].’ [Citation.]” (People v. Leal (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 829, 838 (Leal).) The Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) (§ 11362.7 et seq.), which was “designed to clarify the CUA 9 and facilitate its enforcement, provides enhanced protection through use of identification cards. ‘At the heart of the MMP is a voluntary “identification card” scheme that, unlike the CUA—whi

2014Under the MMP, a person who suffers from a “serious medical condition” . . . may register and receive an annually renewable identification card that, in turn, can be shown to a law enforcement officer who otherwise might arrest the program participant . . . .’ [Citation.]” ( Leal, supra, at p. 838 , italics omitted.) However, “[a] card that reveals false information, fraud, or other violations of the CUA may certainly be challenged.

2008Federal law, however, continues to prohibit the drug's possession, even by medical users. ( 21 U.S.C. §§ 812 , 844(a)); see Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 26-29 , 125 S.Ct. 2195 , 162 L.Ed.2d 1 ; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 491-195 , 121 S.Ct. 1711 , 149 L.Ed.2d 722 .

2008Federal law, however, continues to prohibit the drug's possession, even by medical users. ( 21 U.S.C. §§ 812 , 844(a)); see Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 26-29 , 125 S.Ct. 2195 , 162 L.Ed.2d 1 ; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 491-195 , 121 S.Ct. 1711 , 149 L.Ed.2d 722 .

1990(See Twohy v. State (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 515 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ] [two months' rehabilitation]; Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 820, 824-825 [ 244 Cal. Rptr. 482 , 749 P.2d 1336 ] [less than two years' rehabilitation and recovery dubious]; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ] [eighteen months' rehabilitation].) On the other hand, when the period of abstention is significant, so as to demonstrate a "meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation" ( Rosenthal, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 664 ), we have concluded that

1990(See Twohy v. State (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 515 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ] [two months' rehabilitation]; Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 820, 824-825 [ 244 Cal. Rptr. 482 , 749 P.2d 1336 ] [less than two years' rehabilitation and recovery dubious]; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ] [eighteen months' rehabilitation].) On the other hand, when the period of abstention is significant, so as to demonstrate a "meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation" ( Rosenthal, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 664 ), we have concluded that

1990(See Twohy v. State (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 515 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ] [two months' rehabilitation]; Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 820, 824-825 [ 244 Cal. Rptr. 482 , 749 P.2d 1336 ] [less than two years' rehabilitation and recovery dubious]; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ] [eighteen months' rehabilitation].) On the other hand, when the period of abstention is significant, so as to demonstrate a "meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation" ( Rosenthal, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 664 ), we have concluded that

1990(See Twohy v. State (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 515 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ] [two months' rehabilitation]; Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 820, 824-825 [ 244 Cal. Rptr. 482 , 749 P.2d 1336 ] [less than two years' rehabilitation and recovery dubious]; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ] [eighteen months' rehabilitation].) On the other hand, when the period of abstention is significant, so as to demonstrate a "meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation" ( Rosenthal, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 664 ), we have concluded that

1990(See Twohy v. State (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 515 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ] [two months' rehabilitation]; Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 820, 824-825 [ 244 Cal. Rptr. 482 , 749 P.2d 1336 ] [less than two years' rehabilitation and recovery dubious]; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ] [eighteen months' rehabilitation].) On the other hand, when the period of abstention is significant, so as to demonstrate a "meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation" ( Rosenthal, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 664 ), we have concluded that

1990(See Twohy v. State (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 515 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ] [two months' rehabilitation]; Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 820, 824-825 [ 244 Cal. Rptr. 482 , 749 P.2d 1336 ] [less than two years' rehabilitation and recovery dubious]; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ] [eighteen months' rehabilitation].) On the other hand, when the period of abstention is significant, so as to demonstrate a "meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation" ( Rosenthal, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 664 ), we have concluded that

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989Cir. 1985) 761 F.2d 657, 660 (supervisor who proposes termination of an employee is permitted to conduct full, impartial review of the matter and to make the final decision so long as the employee receives notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence and an opportunity to present his side of the story); Frumkin v. Board of Trustees, Kent State (6th Cir. 1980) 626 F.2d 19, 21-22 (no due process violation in having a university president, who had decided to dismiss a tenured professor, override the recommendation of a hearing committee not to terminate the professor’s employm

1989Cir. 1985) 761 F.2d 657, 660 (supervisor who proposes termination of an employee is permitted to conduct full, impartial review of the matter and to make the final decision so long as the employee receives notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence and an opportunity to present his side of the story); Frumkin v. Board of Trustees, Kent State (6th Cir. 1980) 626 F.2d 19, 21-22 (no due process violation in having a university president, who had decided to dismiss a tenured professor, override the recommendation of a hearing committee not to terminate the professor’s employm

1989And we have not hesitated to impose a harsher sanction where the proposed discipline is inadequate to prevent the probable recurrence of misconduct. ( Carter v. State Bar, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1101; see also In re Nevill, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 735 ; Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717, 723 [ 144 Cal. Rptr. 214 , 575 P.2d 757 ].) The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Rules Proc. of State Bar, div.

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989And we have not hesitated to impose a harsher sanction where the proposed discipline is inadequate to prevent the probable recurrence of misconduct. ( Carter v. State Bar, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1101; see also In re Nevill, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 735 ; Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717, 723 [ 144 Cal. Rptr. 214 , 575 P.2d 757 ].) The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Rules Proc. of State Bar, div.

1989And we have not hesitated to impose a harsher sanction where the proposed discipline is inadequate to prevent the probable recurrence of misconduct. ( Carter v. State Bar, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1101; see also In re Nevill, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 735 ; Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717, 723 [ 144 Cal. Rptr. 214 , 575 P.2d 757 ].) The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Rules Proc. of State Bar, div.

1989NOTES [*] Before Lucas, C.J., Broussard, J., Panelli, J., Eagleson, J., Kennard, J., and Low (Harry W.), J.[†] [†] Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] Petitioner's name appeared on the ballot, but he did not win the election. [2] The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Standards) guide our choice of the appropriate discipline where, as here, the hearing panel decision is filed after January 1, 1986. ( Kent v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 729, 737 [ 239 Cal. Rptr. 77 , 739 P

1989NOTES [*] Before Lucas, C.J., Broussard, J., Panelli, J., Eagleson, J., Kennard, J., and Low (Harry W.), J.[†] [†] Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] Petitioner's name appeared on the ballot, but he did not win the election. [2] The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Standards) guide our choice of the appropriate discipline where, as here, the hearing panel decision is filed after January 1, 1986. ( Kent v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 729, 737 [ 239 Cal. Rptr. 77 , 739 P

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1989What is the Appropriate Degree of Discipline? (6a) Having determined that petitioner's offense involved moral turpitude and that discipline must be imposed, we are left with the task of determining the appropriate degree of that discipline. (7) It is well settled that where a disparity exists between the recommendation of the hearing panel and the review department, that of the review department is entitled to greater weight. ( Galardi v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 683, 693-694 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 774 , 739 P.2d 134 ].) And, even though we accord great weight to the department's recommendation, t

1987(Garlow v. State Bar (1982) 30 Cal.3d 912, 916 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 831 , 640 P.2d 1106 ].) Again, however, the ultimate decision remains with this court.

1987(Garlow v. State Bar (1982) 30 Cal.3d 912, 916 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 831 , 640 P.2d 1106 ].) Again, however, the ultimate decision remains with this court.