Court rules against Florida officials on medical marijuana
Law Firm News
A Florida appellate court ruled that the state's approach to regulating marijuana is unconstitutional, possibly allowing more providers to jump into a market positioned to become one of the country's most lucrative.
If the ruling stands, it could force state officials to lift existing caps on how many medical marijuana treatment centers can operate in Florida.
Tuesday's ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee was another setback for Florida officials trying to regulate the burgeoning marijuana industry more tightly. It mostly affirmed a lower court's ruling that the caps and operational requirements violated the voter-approved constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana in 2016.
Ever since, the law has been a subject of debate in the legislature and courts. It was unclear whether Florida officials would appeal the ruling.
Florida now has more than 240,000 people registered with the state to legally use medicinal marijuana, according to the Office of Medical Marijuana Use. They are served by 142 dispensaries across the state, the majority operated by about a half-dozen medical marijuana treatment centers that grow their own crop, process it and sell it ? a business model known as vertical integration.
That business model and the limited number of treatment centers were points of contention for Tampa-based Florigrown, which sued the state after being denied a license.
Related listings
-
State's high court won't reconsider baby death case appeal
Law Firm News 04/12/2019Ohio's Supreme Court has declined to reconsider an appeal by a former high school cheerleader charged with killing and burying her newborn baby.The court declined in February to hear Brooke Skylar Richardson's appeal after a lower court ruled doctors...
-
Kansas tells court broad support is reason to OK schools law
Law Firm News 04/10/2019Lawyers for Kansas told the state Supreme Court on Monday that it should sign off on a new law boosting spending on public schools and end a protracted education funding lawsuit partly because the law has broad, bipartisan support.Attorney General De...
-
6 appear in court on charges they sent mosque attack images
Law Firm News 04/08/2019Six people appeared in a New Zealand court Monday on charges they illegally redistributed the video a gunman livestreamed as he shot worshippers at two mosques last month.Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O’Driscoll denied bail to busin...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.