21 U.S.C. § 201
MEDICAL RESEARCH ON CANNABIDIOL.
“Notwithstanding any provision of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), chapter 81 of title 41, United States Code, or any other Federal law, an appropriately registered covered institution of higher education, practitioner, or manufacturer may manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess marijuana or cannabidiol if the marijuana or cannabidiol is manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or possessed, respectively, for purposes of medical research for drug development or subsequent commercial production in accordance with section 202.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2008).
United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2008). “§ 2252 , and to ensure the public's health and general welfare by enacting laws proscribing narcotics trafficking, see 21 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. That the states have already comprehensively criminalized child abuse and drug distribution in no way relegates the federal government's…”
United States v. Facteau, 89 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023). “at 347 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 201 (m)) (emphasis added). Here, by contrast, Fabian is not accused of mislabeling a drug product, and thus the scope of the statutory requirement that statements or other materials "accompany" a product to be considered part of the product's labeling…”
United States v. Barry Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 1994). “The Touby Court held that the challenged statute, 21 U.S.C. § 201 (h), "passes muster even if greater congressional specificity is required in the criminal context.”
Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC (D. Conn. 2024). “Plaintiffs assert in an Amended Complaint two causes of action: (1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (“CMWA”), Conn.”
Pierre v. City Of New York (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “3 On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, a NYPD officer, asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.”
Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC (D. Conn. 2024). “The Amended Complaint contained two causes of action: (1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (“CMWA”), Conn.”
Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC (D. Conn. 2025). “Dooley, United States District Judge: Through this civil action, Plaintiffs Nande Nqadolo and Pamela Mangali (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) assert that Defendants Care at Home LLC, Suzanne Karp, and Daniel Karp (collectively, “Defendants”) improperly withheld overtime that should…”
Richard Andrew Just. v. Georgia Dep't of Pub. Saf. (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). “This appeal arises from the trial court’s dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity of Richard Andrew Justice’s claim for breach of contract against the Georgia Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), which claim was predicated on the failure of DPS to pay him overtime under…”
United States v. Stevens (3rd Cir. 2008). “§ 2252 , and to ensure the public’s health and general welfare by enacting laws proscribing narcotics trafficking, see 21 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. That the states have already comprehensively criminalized child abuse and drug distribution in no way relegates the federal government’s…”
Priddy v. City of Kiowa (10th Cir. 1998). “Priddy (“Priddy”), brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 21 U.S.C. § 201 , et seq., (“FLSA”), alleging the Defendant-Appellee, City of Kiowa, violated the Act in failing to pay him compensation for weekend on-call time.”
United States v. Brown (4th Cir. 1999). “Finally, we reject Brown’s assertion that testimony by accomplices offered against him at trial was inadmissable because it was offered in exchange for considerations of leniency in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2) (1994), as this - 2 - argument is foreclosed under our recent…”
Horton v. Norfolk S. Corp., 102 F. Supp. 2d 330 (M.D.N.C. 1999). “2d 641 (1981) (claim under Fair Labor Standards Act, 21 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The second line of cases implicated here is represented by Gilmer v.”
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.