law medical necessity defense in Washington

8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Butlergreen washctapp · 2005 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2019 2 sentences 2019App. 741, 750 , 109 P.3d 493 (2005) (holding that the statutory affirmative defense in the Medical Use of Cannabis Act superseded the common law medical necessity defense), abrogated by Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 ; Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d at 477 (holding the common law defense of medical necessity is still available even after the Medical Use of Cannabis Act). 9 No. 35029-1-III State v. Ruelas App. 340, 343, 968 P.2d 26 (1998). 2013App. 741,747,750 , 109 P.3d 493 (2005), the Court of Appeals concluded that Williams was still good law and that, in any event, the Act superseded any common law necessity defense. 4 No. 87078-1 We first address whether the Court of Appeals in Williams correctly concluded that Seeley implicitly abolished the common law medical necessity defense.	2	4
State v. Kurtzgreen wash · 2013 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2019 2 sentences 2019App. 340, 345-46 , 968 P.2d 26 (1998) (holding that, with respect to schedule I drugs, a common law medical necessity defense does not exist), abrogated by Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 ; State v. Butler, 126 Wn. 2019App. 741, 750 , 109 P.3d 493 (2005) (holding that the statutory affirmative defense in the Medical Use of Cannabis Act superseded the common law medical necessity defense), abrogated by Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 ; Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d at 477 (holding the common law defense of medical necessity is still available even after the Medical Use of Cannabis Act). 9 No. 35029-1-III State v. Ruelas App. 340, 343, 968 P.2d 26 (1998).	2	2
State v. Shepherdgreen washctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver “before the possession or attempted possession charge is made”); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wn. 2005See State v. Butler, 126 Wash.App. 741 , 109 P.3d 493, 497 (2005) (Division Two case holding, inter alia, that the Acts affirmative defense superseded the common law medical necessity defense); State v. Phelps, 118 Wash.App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver "before the possession or attempted possession charge is made"); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash.App. 544, 548, 552 , 41 P.3d 1235 (Division Three case determining that (1) a physicians statement that a qualifying patient " may benefit from the medical use of marijuana"	2	2
State v. Williamsgreen washctapp · 1998 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2019 2 sentences 2019App. 340, 345-46 , 968 P.2d 26 (1998) (holding that, with respect to schedule I drugs, a common law medical necessity defense does not exist), abrogated by Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 ; State v. Butler, 126 Wn. 2019App. 741, 750 , 109 P.3d 493 (2005) (holding that the statutory affirmative defense in the Medical Use of Cannabis Act superseded the common law medical necessity defense), abrogated by Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 ; Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d at 477 (holding the common law defense of medical necessity is still available even after the Medical Use of Cannabis Act). 9 No. 35029-1-III State v. Ruelas App. 340, 343, 968 P.2d 26 (1998).	1	5
State v. Butlergreen washctapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2019 2 sentences 2019App. 340, 345-46 , 968 P.2d 26 (1998) (holding that, with respect to schedule I drugs, a common law medical necessity defense does not exist), abrogated by Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 ; State v. Butler, 126 Wn. 2005See State v. Butler, 126 Wash.App. 741 , 109 P.3d 493, 497 (2005) (Division Two case holding, inter alia, that the Acts affirmative defense superseded the common law medical necessity defense); State v. Phelps, 118 Wash.App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver "before the possession or attempted possession charge is made"); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash.App. 544, 548, 552 , 41 P.3d 1235 (Division Three case determining that (1) a physicians statement that a qualifying patient " may benefit from the medical use of marijuana"	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Diana green washctapp · 1979 2 sentences 2013State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010). ¶5 The common law medical necessity defense for marijuana was first articulated in State v. Diana, 24 Wn. 2013The common law medical necessity defense for marijuana was first articulated in State v. Diana, 24 Wn.	2	2013–2013
State v. Phelps green washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2005App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver “before the possession or attempted possession charge is made”); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wn. 2005See State v. Butler, 126 Wash.App. 741 , 109 P.3d 493, 497 (2005) (Division Two case holding, inter alia, that the Acts affirmative defense superseded the common law medical necessity defense); State v. Phelps, 118 Wash.App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver "before the possession or attempted possession charge is made"); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash.App. 544, 548, 552 , 41 P.3d 1235 (Division Three case determining that (1) a physicians statement that a qualifying patient " may benefit from the medical use of marijuana"	2	2005–2005
State v. Phelps green washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2005App. 741, 749-51 , 109 P.3d 493, 497 (2005) (Division Two case holding, inter alia, that the Act’s affirmative defense superseded the common law medical necessity defense); State v. Phelps, 118 Wn. 2005See State v. Butler, 126 Wash.App. 741 , 109 P.3d 493, 497 (2005) (Division Two case holding, inter alia, that the Acts affirmative defense superseded the common law medical necessity defense); State v. Phelps, 118 Wash.App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver "before the possession or attempted possession charge is made"); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash.App. 544, 548, 552 , 41 P.3d 1235 (Division Three case determining that (1) a physicians statement that a qualifying patient " may benefit from the medical use of marijuana"	2	2005–2005
State v. Fry green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2013State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010). ¶5 The common law medical necessity defense for marijuana was first articulated in State v. Diana, 24 Wn.	1	2013–2013
State v. Fry green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2013State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010). ¶5 The common law medical necessity defense for marijuana was first articulated in State v. Diana, 24 Wn.	1	2013–2013
State v. Hanson neutral washctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2013App. 322, 330-31 , 157 P.3d 438 (2007) (determining that the Act provided only an affirmative defense to a drug crime and was not inconsistent with the scheduling statute).	1	2013–2013
State v. Hanson neutral washctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2013Nothing in Seeley suggests that by classifying marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance, the legislature also made a finding that marijuana has no accepted medical benefit for purposes of the common law medical necessity defense. 7 Cf. State v. Hanson, 138 Wn.	1	2013–2013
State v. Shepherd green washctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2005See State v. Butler, 126 Wash.App. 741 , 109 P.3d 493, 497 (2005) (Division Two case holding, inter alia, that the Acts affirmative defense superseded the common law medical necessity defense); State v. Phelps, 118 Wash.App. 740, 745 , 77 P.3d 678 (2003) (Division Two case holding that a patient must designate his primary caregiver "before the possession or attempted possession charge is made"); State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash.App. 544, 548, 552 , 41 P.3d 1235 (Division Three case determining that (1) a physicians statement that a qualifying patient " may benefit from the medical use of marijuana"	1	2005–2005

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.010 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.005 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.203 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.900 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check