Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming
Michigan Supreme Court
846 N.W.2d 531 (2014)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
In 2008, Michigan enacted the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (medical-marijuana act). Section 4(a) of the medical-marijuana act immunized qualifying patients from penalty in any way for the use of medical marijuana. The federal controlled-substances act prohibited marijuana. In 2010, the City of Wyoming, Michigan (defendant) adopted a zoning ordinance that prohibited land uses that were contrary to federal law. Violation of city ordinances were punishable by fines. John Ter Beek (plaintiff) was a qualifying patient under the medical-marijuana act. Ter Beek sought to grow, possess, and use medical marijuana in compliance with the medical-marijuana act. However, because marijuana was prohibited by the federal controlled-substances act, the ordinance, in turn, prohibited and penalized the growth, possession, and use of medical marijuana. Consequently, Ter Beek filed a lawsuit against the city in the circuit court. Ter Beek alleged that the zoning ordinance impermissibly violated the state’s medical-marijuana act. The circuit court found that the federal controlled-substances act preempted Michigan’s medical-marijuana act and granted summary disposition in favor of the city. Ter Beek appealed to the court of appeals, which found that the controlled-substances act did not preempt the medical-marijuana act and that Section 4(a) preempted the city’s ordinance. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for a grant of summary disposition in favor of Ter Beek. The city appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCormack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.