Lee v. Vannoy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cannabis-related injury to property for Article III standing but not for RICO statutory standing
• holding that “the fact that [plaintiffs] s[ought] damages for economic harms related to cannabis” was irrelevant to defendants’ standing challenge
• holding district court could fashion a money damages remedy for plaintiffs’ alleged Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act injuries to their cannabis business and therefore their claim was redressable
• dismissing the plaintiff’s RICO claim stemming from alleged injury to her cannabis-related business as RICO was not intended to protect “cannabis-related commerce”
• finding marijuana businesses cannot recover damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
• “[A] court ‘must interpret the statute as a whole, 5 giving effect to each word and making every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner 6 that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or superfluous.’” 7 (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).