• Llamas v. Titus

    No. 2018-0516 (Del. Ch. 2019)Where the remaining member and manager of a cannabis company amended an operating agreement, after the death of his co-member and manager, to cap the number of managers at three and attempted to appoint the deceased member's family as 2 new managers, but failed to remove the 2 managers that would be replaced by the family managers, the family managers were never properly appointed and could not assert claims as purported managers. […]

  • Murro v. Arizona Dept. of Health Services

    No. 18-0471 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019)A conviction for solicitation to commit possession of a dangerous drug for sale is a violation of a state controlled substance law because, even though "solicitation" is a distinct violation, it is defined by the substantive offense - possession of a dangerous drug for sale. A violation of a state controlled substance law is an excluded felony offense that bars a person from becoming a medical marijuana dispensary agent under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. […]

  • CWNevada LLC

    No. 19-12300 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2019)Where an operator cultivating, producing and distributing marijuana did not establish debtor-in-possession bank accounts, did not have legal counsel separate from its general counsel which may have been conflicted, significant issues concerning management of the debtor existed, and management understated the debtor's finances, dismissal of the case was in the interests of creditors. […]

  • Mission Pennsylvania, LLC v. Wallace McKelvey

    No. 185 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019)Department of Health has the burden of supporting its grounds for denying access to portions of applications even if a third party is best suited to provide the most detailed proof for the withholding.Records in an agency's possession are presumed public unless exempt under an exception in the Right To Know Law. […]

  • Washington v. Barr

    No. 18-859 (2nd Cir. 2019)Plaintiffs challenging the inclusion of marijuana on CSA schedules failed to exhaust administrative process because they did not pursue reclassification by the DEA. Despite failure to exhaust administrative process, dismissal is inappropriate where an agency's (DEA) delay attending exhaustion could make exhaustion futile. Second Circuit retained jurisdiction to require DEA to respond promptly if plaintiffs pursue administrative review from the DEA and it fails to […]