Mercer v. Andrews

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “without a private cause of action, [the statute in question] would have no practical effect, because the law does not provide for any other enforcement mechanism.”
• concluding that Connecticut medical cannabis statutes implied a private right of action for employment discrimination and SUPREME COURT Or NEVADA (0) I947A 44 1 ,DIr> 12 rejecting a public policy tort claim as precluded by the private right of action
• noting that the CSA does not “purport to regulate employment practices in any manner”
• noting that the CSA does not “purport to regulate employment practices in any manner”
• considering whether the CSA preempts a state law provision precluding certain forms of employment discrimination against medical marijuana users, court observes that “[t]he CSA . . . does not make it illegal to employ a marijuana user”
• considering whether the CSA preempts a state law provision precluding certain forms of employment discrimination against medical marijuana users, court observes that “[t]he CSA . . . does not make it illegal to employ a marijuana user”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).