Lessons Learned From the First Phase of Pa.'s Marijuana Program
With the dust settling and fuzzy math shrieks abating, Pennsylvania's medical marijuana program's (program) first phase has drawn to a close. Or has it?
August 31, 2017 at 05:30 PM
9 minute read
With the dust settling and fuzzy math shrieks abating, Pennsylvania's medical marijuana program's (program) first phase has drawn to a close. Or has it?
Denying 408 applications and demanding its 12 grower/processor and 27 dispensary licensees construct statutorily compliant facilities within 182 days, the program's overseeing agency, Pennsylvania's Department of Health (DOH), faces Herculean obstacles in overcoming the missteps which crippled New York, Maryland and New Jersey's programs and mollifying scores of disgruntled and litigious applicants.
|Medical Marijuana Program
Defined by the Medical Marijuana Act, 35 P.S. Sections 10231.101-10231.2110, regulations promulgated there under, and Medical Marijuana Organization (MMO) permit application (application) (hereafter, collectively referred to as the marijuana law), the program encompasses 17 serious medical conditions eligible for marijuana prescription including post-traumatic stress disorder.
Authorizing 25 grow/processing licenses and 50 dispensary licenses, each empowering the licensee to open three locations for up to 150 dispensaries, leading trade publication Marijuana Business Daily estimated that if even less than 1 percent of the commonwealth's 12.8 million residents participate, the program would be populated by over 100,000 card holders generating $100-$150 million in annual sales revenue.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'Pittsburgh History': Boring Name, Big Development for Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute read
Settlement of Commercial Litigation Matters: Approaches and Issues to Keep in Mind
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 2Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 3Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 4'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
- 5Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams Announces Resignation from Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
