Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Initiated Law 1 of 2008
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424 (2026)

Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; conditions; privilege from arrests; presumption; compensation; physician subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or vicinity of medical use of marihuana; registry identification card issued outside of department; sale of marihuana as felony; penalty; marihuana-infused product.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT


Initiated Law 1 of 2008


333.26424 Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; conditions; privilege from arrests; presumption; compensation; physician subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or vicinity of medical use of marihuana; registry identification card issued outside of department; sale of marihuana as felony; penalty; marihuana-infused product.

    4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

    Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed a combined total of 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalents, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the qualifying patient presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the qualifying patient.

    (b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses marihuana in forms and amounts that do not exceed any of the following:

    (1) For each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process, a combined total of 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalents.

    (2) For each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

    (3) Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

    (c) For purposes of determining usable marihuana equivalency, the following shall be considered equivalent to 1 ounce of usable marihuana:

    (1) 16 ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a solid form.

    (2) 7 grams of marihuana-infused product if in a gaseous form.

    (3) 36 fluid ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a liquid form.

    (d) A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

    (e) There is a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver complies with both of the following:

    (1) Is in possession of a registry identification card.

    (2) Is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

    (f) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation does not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

    (g) A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.

    (h) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana.

    (i) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.

    (j) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

    (k) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

    (l) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed the medical use of marihuana under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

    (m) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for manufacturing a marihuana-infused product if the person is any of the following:

    (1) A registered qualifying patient, manufacturing for his or her own personal use.

    (2) A registered primary caregiver, manufacturing for the use of a patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

    (n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product or marihuana to any individual.

    (o) A primary caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 283, Eff. Dec. 20, 2016

Compiler's Notes:

    MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:

    10. Severability.

    Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

    Enacting section 2 of Act 283 of 2016 provides:

    "Enacting section 2. This amendatory act clarifies ambiguities in the law in accordance with the original intent of the people, as expressed in section 2(b) of the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26422:

     "(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.". [Emphasis added.]

     This amendatory act is curative and applies retroactively as to the following: clarifying the quantities and forms of marihuana for which a person is protected from arrest, precluding an interpretation of "weight" as aggregate weight, and excluding an added inactive substrate component of a preparation in determining the amount of marihuana, medical marihuana, or usable marihuana that constitutes an offense. Retroactive application of this amendatory act does not create a cause of action against a law enforcement officer or any other state or local governmental officer, employee, department, or agency that enforced this act under a good-faith interpretation of its provisions at the time of enforcement."

    For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the bureau of marijuana regulation, see E.R.O. No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001.

    For the renaming of the marijuana regulatory agency to the cannabis regulatory agency, see E.R.O. No. 2022-1, compiled at MCL 333.27002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 153 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 108× “Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the immunity provision of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26424. The court denied the motion.”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 43× “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 26× “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 823 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 16× “, does not preempt § 4(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a), we reverse and remand. I.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 15× “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 8× “1 Given the plain language of the statute, we hold that a defendant asserting the § 8 affirmative defense is not required to establish the requirements of § 4, MCL 333.26424, which pertains to broader immunity granted by the act.”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 8× “, permits qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana in a collective or cooperative and (2) whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to immunity from prosecution for manufacturing marijuana under §4…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 7× “This confusion mainly stems from the immunity, MCL 333.26424 (§ 4), and the affirmative defense, MCL 333.”
People v. Johnson, 838 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “In particular, at the time of defendants’ arrests, MCL 333.26424 as originally enacted provided: (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner .”
People v. Danto, 294 Mich. App. 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “Section 4(a) states: A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action…”
Joseph Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424 (a). The parties’ dispute focuses on the use of the word “business” and whether the word simply modifies the words “licensing board or bureau,” or in the alternative, whether “business” should be read independently from “licensing board or bureau.”
People v. Nicholson, 822 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, the district court indicated that § 4 and § 8 (MCL 333.26424 and MCL 333.26428) of the MMMA did not protect two different classes of patients, and that defendant was required to establish a doctor-patient relationship under § 4.”
Show all 153 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(1) — 1 case
Stephen Kudzia v. Avasi Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(4)(a) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015). “This confusion mainly stems from the immunity, MCL 333.26424 (§ 4), and the affirmative defense, MCL 333.”
People of Michigan v. Richard Lee Hartwick (Mich. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(a) — 86 cases
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 823 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “, does not preempt § 4(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a), we reverse and remand. I.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Nicholson, 822 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, the district court indicated that § 4 and § 8 (MCL 333.26424 and MCL 333.26428) of the MMMA did not protect two different classes of patients, and that defendant was required to establish a doctor-patient relationship under § 4.”
Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(b) — 34 cases
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). “, permits qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana in a collective or cooperative and (2) whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to immunity from prosecution for manufacturing marijuana under §4…”
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015). “Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the immunity provision of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26424. The court denied the motion.”
Christie Deruiter v. Twp. of Byron, 926 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(b)(1) — 18 cases
Christie Deruiter v. Twp. of Byron, 926 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Comm'n, 838 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
People v. Hartwick, 842 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
People v. Tuttle, 850 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(b)(2) — 9 cases
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). “, permits qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana in a collective or cooperative and (2) whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to immunity from prosecution for manufacturing marijuana under §4…”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
Charter Twp. of York v. Donald Miller, 915 N.W.2d 373 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People v. Bylsma, 816 N.W.2d 426 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Charter Twp. of York v. Donald Miller (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(c) — 3 cases
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012). “1 Given the plain language of the statute, we hold that a defendant asserting the § 8 affirmative defense is not required to establish the requirements of § 4, MCL 333.26424, which pertains to broader immunity granted by the act.”
Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).
in Re beeler/hall Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(d) — 20 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012). “1 Given the plain language of the statute, we hold that a defendant asserting the § 8 affirmative defense is not required to establish the requirements of § 4, MCL 333.26424, which pertains to broader immunity granted by the act.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015). “This confusion mainly stems from the immunity, MCL 333.26424 (§ 4), and the affirmative defense, MCL 333.”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012). “, permits qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana in a collective or cooperative and (2) whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to immunity from prosecution for manufacturing marijuana under §4…”
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(d)(1) — 2 cases
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
People v. Hartwick, 842 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(d)(2) — 9 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015). “This confusion mainly stems from the immunity, MCL 333.26424 (§ 4), and the affirmative defense, MCL 333.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
People v. Tuttle, 850 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(e) — 8 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
People v. Johnson, 838 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “In particular, at the time of defendants’ arrests, MCL 333.26424 as originally enacted provided: (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner .”
People v. Koon, 818 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(f) — 11 cases
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015). “Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the immunity provision of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26424. The court denied the motion.”
People v. Butler-Jackson, 862 N.W.2d 423 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).
People v. Hartwick, 842 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(g) — 4 cases
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015). “Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the immunity provision of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26424. The court denied the motion.”
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Vernon Eugene Proctor Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Cynthia Ann Mazur (Mich. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(h) — 2 cases
Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).
People of Michigan v. Johnnie Vernon Randall (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(i) — 10 cases
People v. Mazur, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015). “Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the immunity provision of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26424. The court denied the motion.”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Johnson, 838 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “In particular, at the time of defendants’ arrests, MCL 333.26424 as originally enacted provided: (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner .”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(j) — 2 cases
Kane v. Williamstown Twp., 836 N.W.2d 868 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
People of Michigan v. Mark Jonathan Christensen (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(k) — 8 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). “26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
State v. McQueen, 811 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 333.26424(a) and (b); see also Anderson, 293 Mich App at 45-47 (M.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “[ 5 ] [MCL 333.26424.] Section 8 provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7 [MCL 333.”
People v. Butler-Jackson, 862 N.W.2d 423 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
State of Michigan v. Brandon McQueen (Mich. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26424(l) — 1 case
United States v. Blomquist, 361 F. Supp. 3d 744 (W.D. Mich. 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.