Florida DOH Claims Orchid Nursery Has No Constitutional Protection In Marijuana Licenses

George Indest HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On August 27, 2020, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) argued to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that a Florida nursery can’t claim the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects its right to marijuana licenses. The DOH urged the appellate court to uphold the dismissal of Louis Del Favero Orchids’ suit because, it claimed, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t cover a property interest in a business that is illegal under federal law. This seems to be a rather hypocritical argument in that the counter-question could be “How can the state of Florida issue licenses for or control a business that is illegal under federal law?”

Is the Law Constitutionally Protected?

The would-be medical pot nursery operator has been fighting since 2016 to get one of the state’s few medical marijuana licenses. It has been involved in ongoing litigation in state court over Florida’s medical marijuana licensing process.

The nursery claims that the U.S. Constitution protects a property right to the licenses even if Congress has outlawed marijuana because the right itself is created by state law. In its suit, Louis Del Favero Orchids said that the property right itself originates in Florida state law, specifically, the law that legalized medical marijuana. Federal law can only determine “whether a given property interest rises to the level of a protected property interest,” the nursery argued in its brief.

According to the nursery’s brief, it sought damages and an injunction requiring the state of Florida to grant the company a hearing on its application for a medical marijuana license. You can read the nursery’s brief here.

Property Right in the “Process of” the Issuance of a Medical Marijuana License?

The Florida nursery filed its case first in federal court in June 2019. But in November 2019, the federal judge threw out the suit, deciding that the company had a property interest in the pot license under state law, but not under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lower court decided that if Congress has legislated that marijuana is against the law, then it can’t be property protected by the U.S. Constitution. As a result, this decision, the nursery quickly appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit.

In the brief it filed in the Court of Appeals, the Florida DOH urged the Eleventh Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision. It argued that not only is the right to a medical pot license not protected by the 14th Amendment, but there’s no property right in the process of medical marijuana licensure, the DOH told the court.

Click here to read the Florida DOH’s brief in full.

What the case does not discuss is the fact the Florida Constitution contains a provision identical to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in its Article 1, Section 9, which states: “Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . .” However, if the federal court’s decision stands, then this would be a matter solely based on Florida law and not one for the federal courts.

To learn more about their ongoing litigation in Florida involving medical marijuana issues, click here.

Click here to go to our Marijuana Law Blog page and read my prior blog on this subject to learn more.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical and Recreational Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting, and/or licensing while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies, and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Jones, Diana. “No Constitutional Right To Pot Licenses, Fla. Tells 11th Circ.” Law360. (August 27, 2020). Web.

Jones, Diana. “Nursery Tells 11th Circ. Pot License Constitutionally Protected.” Law360. (June 29, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Florida Department of Health Claims Orchid Nursery Has No Constitutional Protection In Pot Licenses

George Indest HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On August 27, 2020, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) argued to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that a Florida nursery can’t claim the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects its right to marijuana licenses. The DOH urged the appellate court to uphold the dismissal of Louis Del Favero Orchids’ suit because, it claimed, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t cover a property interest in a business that is illegal under federal law. This seems to be a rather hypocritical argument in that the counter-question could be “How can the state of Florida issue licenses for or control a business that is illegal under federal law?”

Is the Law Constitutionally Protected?

The would-be medical pot nursery operator has been fighting since 2016 to get one of the state’s few medical marijuana licenses. It has been involved in ongoing litigation in state court over Florida’s medical marijuana licensing process.

The nursery claims that the U.S. Constitution protects a property right to the licenses even if Congress has outlawed marijuana because the right itself is created by state law. In its suit, Louis Del Favero Orchids said that the property right itself originates in Florida state law, specifically, the law that legalized medical marijuana. Federal law can only determine “whether a given property interest rises to the level of a protected property interest,” the nursery argued in its brief.

According to the nursery’s brief, it sought damages and an injunction requiring the state of Florida to grant the company a hearing on its application for a medical marijuana license. You can read the nursery’s brief here.

Property Right in the “Process of” the Issuance of a Medical Marijuana License?

The Florida nursery filed its case first in federal court in June 2019. But in November 2019, the federal judge threw out the suit, deciding that the company had a property interest in the pot license under state law, but not under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lower court decided that if Congress has legislated that marijuana is against the law, then it can’t be property protected by the U.S. Constitution. As a result, this decision, the nursery quickly appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit.

In the brief it filed in the Court of Appeals, the Florida DOH urged the Eleventh Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision. It argued that not only is the right to a medical pot license not protected by the 14th Amendment, but there’s no property right in the process of medical marijuana licensure, the DOH told the court.

Click here to read the Florida DOH’s brief in full.

What the case does not discuss is the fact the Florida Constitution contains a provision identical to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in its Article 1, Section 9, which states: “Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . .” However, if the federal court’s decision stands, then this would be a matter solely based on Florida law and not one for the federal courts.

To learn more about their ongoing litigation in Florida involving medical marijuana issues, click here.

Click here to go to our Marijuana Law Blog page and read my prior blog on this subject to learn more.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical and Recreational Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting, and/or licensing while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies, and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Jones, Diana. “No Constitutional Right To Pot Licenses, Fla. Tells 11th Circ.” Law360. (August 27, 2020). Web.

Jones, Diana. “Nursery Tells 11th Circ. Pot License Constitutionally Protected.” Law360. (June 29, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Florida Department of Health Claims Orchid Nursery Has No Constitutional Protection In Pot Licenses

George Indest HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On August 27, 2020, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) argued to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that a Florida nursery can’t claim the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects its right to marijuana licenses. The DOH urged the appellate court to uphold the dismissal of Louis Del Favero Orchids’ suit because, it claimed, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t cover a property interest in a business that is illegal under federal law. This seems to be a rather hypocritical argument in that the counter-question could be “How can the state of Florida issue licenses for or control a business that is illegal under federal law?”

Is the Law Constitutionally Protected?

The would-be medical pot nursery operator has been fighting since 2016 to get one of the state’s few medical marijuana licenses. It has been involved in ongoing litigation in state court over Florida’s medical marijuana licensing process.

The nursery claims that the U.S. Constitution protects a property right to the licenses even if Congress has outlawed marijuana because the right itself is created by state law. In its suit, Louis Del Favero Orchids said that the property right itself originates in Florida state law, specifically, the law that legalized medical marijuana. Federal law can only determine “whether a given property interest rises to the level of a protected property interest,” the nursery argued in its brief.

According to the nursery’s brief, it sought damages and an injunction requiring the state of Florida to grant the company a hearing on its application for a medical marijuana license. You can read the nursery’s brief here.

Property Right in the “Process of” the Issuance of a Medical Marijuana License?

The Florida nursery filed its case first in federal court in June 2019. But in November 2019, the federal judge threw out the suit, deciding that the company had a property interest in the pot license under state law, but not under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lower court decided that if Congress has legislated that marijuana is against the law, then it can’t be property protected by the U.S. Constitution. As a result, this decision, the nursery quickly appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit.

In the brief it filed in the Court of Appeals, the Florida DOH urged the Eleventh Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision. It argued that not only is the right to a medical pot license not protected by the 14th Amendment, but there’s no property right in the process of medical marijuana licensure, the DOH told the court.

Click here to read the Florida DOH’s brief in full.

What the case does not discuss is the fact the Florida Constitution contains a provision identical to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in its Article 1, Section 9, which states: “Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . .” However, if the federal court’s decision stands, then this would be a matter solely based on Florida law and not one for the federal courts.

To learn more about their ongoing litigation in Florida involving medical marijuana issues, click here.

Click here to go to our Marijuana Law Blog page and read my prior blog on this subject to learn more.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical and Recreational Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting, and/or licensing while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies, and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Jones, Diana. “No Constitutional Right To Pot Licenses, Fla. Tells 11th Circ.” Law360. (August 27, 2020). Web.

Jones, Diana. “Nursery Tells 11th Circ. Pot License Constitutionally Protected.” Law360. (June 29, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Florida medical marijuana legislation, medical marijuana representation, medical marijuana regulation attorney, medical marijuana lawyer, legal representation for medical marijuana issues, health care business application attorney, Florida marijuana law attorney, representation for marijuana growers, representation for marijuana distributors, defense attorney for marijuana growers, defense attorney for marijuana distributors, defense lawyer for medical marijuana, health law defense attorney, Florida medical cannabis representation, medical cannabis lawyer, cannabis defense lawyer, medical marijuana defense attorney, health lawyers for marijuana distributors, legal counsel for marijuana growers and distributors, medical marijuana laws, representation for medical marijuana legalization, representation for recreational marijuana laws and regulations, legal representation for recreational marijuana in a business, legal counsel for marijuana law, legal representation for marijuana decriminalization, legal representation for marijuana regulations, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Court Says Walmart’s Firing Violated Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law

George IndestBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On March 22, 2019, the U.S. District Court in Arizona granted summary judgment on anti-discrimination claims in favor of the plaintiff former employee and against Walmart under Arizona’s medical marijuana statute. The plaintiff, a former employee of Walmart, had been terminated after allegedly testing positive for marijuana.

This case is significant because as more states are adopting medical marijuana laws, this represents the growing risks to employers who engage in adverse employment actions against medical marijuana users. Furthermore, since the decision was in federal court, it is even more significant. In this case, Arizona employers gained some much needed guidance for navigating Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).

The court held that individuals with medical marijuana cards can sue their employers under the AMMA if action is taken against them merely because there is a positive drug test for the presence of marijuana. Also, employers cannot avoid liability by merely showing the employee tested positive because he or she had marijuana metabolites in their system.

The Case: Whitmire v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

In Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Inc., a former employee and qualified patient under the AMMA, injured her wrist while at work. Two days later, she notified human resources of pain and swelling in her injured wrist. At that time, her supervisor instructed her to seek medical treatment. Because she had used marijuana roughly twelve hours before her shift to help her sleep, the drug test was positive for marijuana.

As a result of that drug test alone, Wal-Mart terminated her employment. She then filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging that it had violated the AMMA by discriminating against her for her use of medical marijuana. The plaintiff argued that Walmart’s admitted policy of firing regardless of whether the employee possesses a medical marijuana card and regardless of the level detected constituted a complete disregard for the AMMA’s anti-discrimination provisions.

Violating Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).

The court agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that, without having produced any evidence that the plaintiff “used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana,” Walmart had discriminated against her in violation of the AMMA. Furthermore, by suspending and then terminating her solely based on her positive drug screen and in the absence of expert testimony, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her AMMA discrimination claim.

It should be remembered, however, that in this case, Arizona has a provision in its medical marijuana law that prohibits discrimination against legitimate users. Every state may not have this. If your state does not have a similar provision in your state’s medical marijuana law, you should lobby for an amendment to include one.

To read the court’s order in this case, click here.

To read about a similar case of employment discrimination dealing with marijuana use, read one of my recent blogs here.

To read about marijuana workplace discrimination in other states such as Colorado, where recreational use is legal, click here to read one of our prior blogs on our Colorado Law Blog.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting and/or licensing, while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Peabody, Daniel. “A New Ruling on the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act: Did Your Drug Testing Policy Just Go Up in Smoke?” JD Supra. (February 21, 2019). Web.

Mooreman, William; Samolis, Alicia. “Employer Liability For Medical Marijuana Bias Is Growing.” Law360. (March 22, 2019). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: medical marijuana defense attorney , medical cannabis defense lawyer, marijuana license lawyer, legal representation for medical marijuana law, medical marijuana law representation, medical marijuana defense lawyer, legal defense of nurses, health employment law defense attorney, nurse defense lawyer, legal representation for nurses in employer drug testing, nurse drug test defnse lawyer, nurse drug test, defense attorney, nurse license defense attorney, medical marijuana license defense lawyer, nurse employment defense attorney, legal representation for workplace marijuana regulations, lawyer for medical marijuana growers and distributors, health lawyers for marijuana distributors, complex health care litigation attorney, legal counsel for marijuana growers and distributors, nurse license complaint defense attorney, legal counsel for marijuana law, marijuana law attorney, legal representation for marijuana decriminalization, legal representation for marijuana regulations, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm, complex medical business litigation lawyer, professional license defense attorney, medical marijuana license defense lawyer

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2019 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Federal Court in Connecticut Rules Workers Can’t Be Denied Jobs for Medical Marijuana Use

George Indest Headshot

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On December 7, 2018, a federal judge in Connecticut ruled that a nursing home violated an anti-discrimination provision of the state’s medical marijuana law when it rescinded an employee’s job offer. It’s the latest in a series of similar clashes between federal and state laws around the country that came out in favor of medical marijuana users trying to keep or obtain jobs with drug-testing employers. The ruling provided clarification on medical marijuana use under the Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).
Advocates hope the new decisions are a sign of growing acceptance of marijuana’s medicinal value.

Background of the Case.

The plaintiff was a healthcare worker who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2012 after being in a car accident. She notified a potential employer that she qualified under PUMA for her use of medical marijuana to cope with the effects of the accident. However, when a drug test came back positive for marijuana, the nursing home rescinded her job offer anyway, citing federal law which indicates marijuana is still illegal.

The plaintiff sued alleging the nursing home violated PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision. This provision of the law allows qualified patients to use marijuana and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions because of the individual’s qualifying status.

Court Grants Summary Judgment.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Meyer ruled the nursing home discriminated against her based solely on her medical marijuana use was in violation of state law. In doing so, the judge rejected the nursing home’s argument that the federal Drug Free Workplace Act (DFWA) required the nursing center to rescind the plaintiff’s job offer. The court also rejected the nursing home’s argument that the federal False Claims Act (FCA) bars the center from hiring the plaintiff because its employment of someone who uses medical marijuana in violation of federal law would amount to “defrauding of the federal government.” The court stated there is no federal law that bars the center from hiring the plaintiff on account of her medicinal marijuana use outside of work hours.
(We have seen these this type of creative argument made before by both plaintiffs and defendants in litigation arguing that certain actions constitute a violation of the False Claims Act when actually they do not; in this case, the judge failed to be suckered into agreeing with this argument.)

Significance of this Case.

This decision is significant for employers because it clarifies the relationship between federal and Connecticut state laws concerning marijuana use and provides guidelines for drug testing in the employment domain. It indicates that PUMA protects a qualifying patient’s medical marijuana use outside the realm of working hours. The case is now heading to a trial on whether the plaintiff should receive compensatory damages for lost wages from not getting the job.

In this case, there was a strong state law in favor of the employee which allowed the use of medical marijuana. The federal court gave deference to the state law.

Additionally, the decision will likely be used in arguments in similar cases across the county. As this area of the law continues to develop and change, employers should consider reviewing their own drug-related policies and adjust them as necessary.

To read about another case where an employee got fired for using marijuana outside of work, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting and/or licensing, while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

“New rulings on medical marijuana use go against employers.” The Denver Channel. (December 5, 2018). Web.

Elser, Wilson. “New Ruling on Medical Marijuana in the Workplace Clarifies Connecticut’s PUMA Legislation.” The National Law Review. (December 7, 2018). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Health worker employment discrimination defense attorney, medical marijuana, medical cannabis, marijuana license lawyer, marijuana defense attorney, legal representation for medical marijuana law, medical marijuana law representation, marijuana defense lawyer, drug-free work place, Drug-Free Work Place Act, legal defense of nurses, health employment law defense attorney, representation for legalizing marijuana, medical marijuana license defense lawyer, legal representation for medical marijuana policy, nurse employment defense attorney, legal representation for workplace marijuana regulations, lawyer for medical marijuana growers and distributors, health lawyers for marijuana distributors, complex health care litigation attorney, legal counsel for marijuana growers and distributors, nurse license complaint defense attorney, legal counsel for marijuana law, marijuana law attorney, legal representation for marijuana decriminalization, legal representation for marijuana regulations, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm, complex medical business litigation lawyer, professional license defense attorney, medical marijuana license defense lawyer

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2019 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Colorado Jury Rules in Favor of Marijuana Grow Business in Federal RICO Lawsuit

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On November 14, 2018, a federal jury in Denver rejected claims involving the odor that was allegedly coming from a pot farm. This was a case that was being closely watched by the marijuana industry. The marijuana business had been sued for damages to neighboring property value under anti-racketeering laws.

Given the recent approval of medical marijuana in Florida, it seems likely that there would be “copy cat lawsuits” filed in Florida, as well. The only difference in Florida would be the long history of pig farm precedents that exist.

A Closely Watched Lawsuit.

This was an important suit for the marijuana industry because it was the first federal suit brought under federal anti-racketeering laws. If the lawsuit had been successful, it could have created a new blueprint for opponents of marijuana legalization to dismantle the industry through civil cases under RICO laws.

The couple who own and live on land adjacent to the grow facility said the facility damaged their property values because of noise and odor. Because it harmed their views, and because no one wants to live near illegal activity, they claimed damages of $1 million.

The grow facility argued during trial that it didn’t cause any odor; its odor-control system doesn’t vent outdoors.

After a short deliberation, the jury ruled in favor of the marijuana grow facility and found it was not responsible for any of the alleged damages. Attorneys that represent similar marijuana facilities said proving property damages in cases like these are very difficult and hope the outcome of this case will deter others from trying the same. Click here to read more on this case.

Click here to read one of my prior blogs.

It is unclear to me why the Plaintiffs in this case prosecuted the case under a RICO theory since such a cause of action is usually very difficult to prove. However, I am not aware of all the facts of the case. It seems to me that a simple suit for nuisance against the marijuana grow farm would have been easier to prove and obtain an injunction on.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting and/or licensing, while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Foody, Kathleen. “Colorado Lawsuit Could Ripple Through US Cannabis Industry.” Health News Florida. (October 30, 2018). Web.

Ingold, John. “Jury finds in favor of Colorado marijuana grow in closely watched federal lawsuit.” The Colorado Sun. (November 18, 2018). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Growing marijuana industry, marijuana defense attorney, medical marijuana defense attorney, lawyer for medical marijuana growers and distributors, health lawyers for marijuana distributors, complex health care litigation attorney, federal medical litigation attorney, legal counsel for marijuana growers and distributors, medical marijuana laws, marijuana laws, medical marijuana legalization, recreational marijuana laws and regulations, legal representation for recreational marijuana in a business, legal counsel for marijuana law, marijuana law attorney, legal representation for marijuana decriminalization, legal representation for marijuana regulations, legal representation for U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, DOJ investigation attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm, complex medical business litigation lawyer, professional license dfense attorney, medical marijuana license defense lawyer

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2018 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Go to Top