Notes of Decisions
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
· cites it 2× “21 U.S.C. § 801a(3). It did so to ensure that "nothing in the Convention will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by [the Secretary] on the basis of a consensus of the views of the American medical and scientific community.”
State v. Atchley, 142 Wash. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
“(citing 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2); RCW 69.50.203; State v.”
Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 200 F.R.D. 285 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
“” 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2). Since legislation implementing the Convention states that it is not self-executing, the Plaintiffs have no standing to bring a claim under the UN Convention.”
Repub. of France v. Moghadam, 617 F. Supp. 777 (N.D. Cal. 1985).
“This court acknowledges that detrimental effects can be caused by drug transportation across the borders of a country and such effects can be inferred from Congressional intent to cooperate with other nations in controlling international traffic in drugs, 21 U.S.C. § 801a(l),…”
United States v. Mauricio Londono-Villa, 930 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1991).
“9725, see 21 U.S.C. § 801a, an international accord intended to promote coordinated in *999 ternational efforts to combat drug trafficking, and stated that the Act gave recognition to, inter alia, the facts that “[a] major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows…”
State v. Hanson, 138 Wash. App. 322 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “21 U.S.C. § 801a(2); RCW 69.50.203; Martin, 14 Wn.”
State v. Atchley, 173 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
“3d 438 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2); RCW 69.50.203; State v.”
United States v. Feld, 514 F. Supp. 283 (E.D.N.Y 1981).
“See also the Convention on Psychotropic Substances signed at Vienna, Austria, on February 21, 1971; 21 U.S.C. § 801a.”
United States v. Bonfant, 660 F. Supp. 509 (D.P.R. 1987).
· cites it 2× “9725, signed at Vienna, Austria, on February 21, 1971, and entered in force in United States on July 15, 1980, see 21 U.S.C. § 801a; Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978, P.”
— 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2) — 4 cases
State v. Atchley, 142 Wash. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
“(citing 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2); RCW 69.50.203; State v.”
Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 200 F.R.D. 285 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
“” 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2). Since legislation implementing the Convention states that it is not self-executing, the Plaintiffs have no standing to bring a claim under the UN Convention.”
State v. Hanson, 138 Wash. App. 322 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
“21 U.S.C. § 801a(2); RCW 69.50.203; Martin, 14 Wn.”
State v. Atchley, 173 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
“3d 438 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2); RCW 69.50.203; State v.”
— 21 U.S.C. § 801a(3) — 1 case
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
“21 U.S.C. § 801a(3). It did so to ensure that "nothing in the Convention will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by [the Secretary] on the basis of a consensus of the views of the American medical and scientific community.”
— 21 U.S.C. § 801a(l) — 4 cases
Repub. of France v. Moghadam, 617 F. Supp. 777 (N.D. Cal. 1985).
“This court acknowledges that detrimental effects can be caused by drug transportation across the borders of a country and such effects can be inferred from Congressional intent to cooperate with other nations in controlling international traffic in drugs, 21 U.S.C. § 801a(l),…”
United States v. Bonfant, 660 F. Supp. 509 (D.P.R. 1987).
“9725, signed at Vienna, Austria, on February 21, 1971, and entered in force in United States on July 15, 1980, see 21 U.S.C. § 801a; Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978, P.”
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.