Medical Marijuana Growers Ass'n v. Corrigan
2012 MT 146
Mont.2012Background
- Plaintiffs (Growers Association, Courier 1, Courier 2, Caregiver 1-3) sought declaratory relief that the 2009 MMA allowed caregiver-to-caregiver transfers and cultivation for other caregivers.
- Corrigan moved for summary judgment arguing the 2009 MMA plainly prohibits caregiver-to-caregiver transactions; the district court granted summary judgment.
- The 2011 MMA repealed the 2009 MMA and replaced it with new regulations; the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing mootness.
- The court addressed whether repeal moots the action and whether UDJA relief remains appropriate.
- The court held the 2009 MMA’s plain language limits caregivers to providing marijuana only to named qualifying patients and does not authorize transfers or cultivation for other caregivers.
- The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, noting that the action is not moot and that the plain language forecloses caregiver-to-caregiver exchanges or cultivation for others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2009 MMA authorize caregiver-to-caregiver transfers or cultivation for others? | Growers argues MMA permits exchanges and cultivation for other caregivers. | Corrigan argues MMA plainly prohibits caregiver-to-caregiver transactions. | No; MMA plain language limits care givers to supplying only to qualifying patients. |
| Is the declaratory action moot after repeal of the 2009 MMA by the 2011 MMA? | Mootness not defeated because past acts could still be prosecuted under 2009 law. | Action moot since 2011 MMA prohibits caregiver-to-caregiver transactions and repeals the 2009 MMA. | Not moot; potential prosecutions under 2009 MMA could occur, and UDJA relief remains appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiser v. Mont. Bd. of Dentistry, 360 Mont. 1, 251 P.3d 675 (2011 MT 56) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- State v. Daniels, 314 Mont. 208, 64 P.3d 104 (2003 MT 30) (criminal statute—time of offense governs prosecution)
- Plan Helena, Inc. v. Helena Regl. Airport Auth. Bd., 355 Mont. 142, 226 P.3d 567 (2010 MT 26) (limits advisory opinions; justiciability requirement)
- Reichert v. State, 365 Mont. 92, 278 P.3d 455 (2012 MT 111) (limits on advisory opinions and justiciable controversies)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal supremacy over state medical marijuana laws)
- State v. Lemmon, 214 Mont. 121, 692 P.2d 455 (1984) (criminal statutes and prosecutorial scope)