The most recent was the Long Beach decision in the 2nd district court of appeal that says that NO local government may institute a permitting, or zoning law that is contrary to the CSA.

“Appellate court voids Long Beach marijuana dispensary law
The panel rules that the city authorized distribution of pot in violation of federal law. The decision could force Los Angeles to rewrite its medical marijuana ordinance.
October 06, 2011|By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times

In a decision that could upend the way California cities regulate medical marijuana, a state Court of Appeal has ruled that Long Beach’s ordinance regulating dispensaries violates federal law.

The city held a lottery, issued permits to the winners and charged fees, which the three-judge panel said put it in the position of authorizing the distribution of marijuana in direct conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes the possession and sale of the drug illegal. Marijuana use remains illegal under California law except for medical purposes.”

Mentch Decision
Supreme Court limited use of the “the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.” It did not limit the activities of patient / caregiver collectives operating under Health and Safety Code 11362.775.

Trippet Decision:
Appellate Court, Prop 215: Patients not entitled to “unlimited amounts,” but transportation and possession are authorized. “The rule should be that the quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. What precisely are the “patient’s current medical needs” must, of course, remain a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact.”

Urziceanu Decision:
Appellate Court, SB 420: Rights to collectively obtain, cultivate and dispense not protected by HS11362.5 but they are protected by HS 11362.7. Chris Conrad testified at the original Sacramento trial and is cited.

http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf

Peron Decision: Appellate Court: “Proposition 215 does not allow ‘unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere.’ It only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient’s personal use. Police Officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.”

IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate
within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for
medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified
patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate
physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and
distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner
that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical
purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within
the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1. Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation
with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members.
(Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “coop”)
unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the
Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative
corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit
for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their
members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business
must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to
members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives
must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of
earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each
year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit
corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as
such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.”
(Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many
characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.)
Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members;
instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating
transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary
defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members
of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.
© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that
merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members –
including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a
statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of
business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana
from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for
facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.

So, taken as a whole, a collective can grow, but only what a patient needs, and con only get back the costs, where as a co-op may purchase cannabis from patients and then sell it to other patients for the mutual benefit of the membership, on a not for profit basis.

Confusing, yes. Impossible to make work legally, no. Incredibly difficult for former black market growers/dealers to comprehend, yes.

Once i find the other file folder I will post the other 3 or four relevant cases.

With those numbers, it sounds like we’re doing something very right in Arcata.

Also, you’re more optimistic than me that we will legalize cannabis. That would be rational, and not in keeping with the times. We have been getting legalization/decriminalization measures on the California ballot and then failing to pass them since 1972.

I can not wait until all of this is a moot point when we finally pass legalization. You never hear all this hubbub over home brewing, or microbrew beer makers.