Note
Medical marijuana; tenant use; eviction, see §521-39.
Law Journals and Reviews
Gonzales v. Raich: How the Medical Marijuana Debate Invoked Commerce Clause Confusion. 28 UH L. Rev. 261.
Case Notes
District court erred in re-determining the fact of medical use in contrast to the parties' stipulation that petitioner possessed and transported medical marijuana under a valid Medical Marijuana Registry Patient Identification Certificate, thus preempting consideration of petitioner's affirmative defense; given that the State presented no evidence showing that the marijuana was for any other use other than a medical use, petitioner proved that petitioner was authorized to possess marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to this part for purposes of an affirmative defense under §712-1240.1(2). 129 H. 397, 301 P.3d 607 (2013).
[§329-124] Insurance not applicable. This part shall not be construed to require insurance coverage for the medical use of marijuana. [L 2000, c 228, pt of §2]
Section: Previous 329-101 329-102 329-103 329-104 329-121 329-122 329-123 329-124 329-125 329-125.5 329-125.6 329-126 329-127 329-128 329-129 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016