D. Connecticut· 8/8/2017
Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co.
Citations
- 273 F. Supp. 3d 326
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).
Judges: Meyer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Palmiter, P. v. Commonwealth Health SystemsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-08-10· cited 22×
- Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.D. Arizona· 2019-02-07· cited 16×
- Freeman Expositions, LLC v. Dist. Ct.Nevada Supreme Court· 2022-12-01· cited 14×
- Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2019-03-27· cited 12×
- Chance v. Kraft Heinz Foods CompanySuperior Court of Delaware· 2018-12-17
- JUSTIN WILD VS. CARRIAGE FUNERAL HOLDINGS, INC. (L-0687-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2019-03-27
- Appeal of Andrew PanaggioSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 2021-03-02
- Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co.D. Connecticut· 2018-09-05
Cites
35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Harris v. MillsSecond Circuit· 2009-07-09· cited 5,185×
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court· 1992-06-18· cited 1,649×
- Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.Supreme Court· 2001-02-27· cited 1,439×
- Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court· 2009-03-04· cited 1,294×
- Arizona v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2012-06-25· cited 1,166×
- Gonzales v. RaichSupreme Court· 2005-06-06· cited 1,051×
- De Canas v. BicaSupreme Court· 1976-02-25· cited 608×
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-01-22· cited 532×
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' CooperativeSupreme Court· 2001-05-21· cited 435×
- Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-07-23· cited 312×
- Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.Supreme Court· 2015-04-21· cited 289×
- Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement System et ano.Second Circuit· 2013-01-29· cited 217×
- Joseph Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Sixth Circuit· 2012-09-19· cited 208×
- Perodeau v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-03-26· cited 184×
- In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (\MTBE\) Products Liability LitigationSecond Circuit· 2013-07-26· cited 155×
- Mastafa v. Chevron Corp.Second Circuit· 2014-10-23· cited 132×
- Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning ServicesSupreme Court· 1996-03-19· cited 109×
- Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.California Supreme Court· 2008-01-24· cited 89×
- Perez-Dickson v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-01· cited 78×
Other cases named Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.