California Supreme Court won't hear Live Oak pot appeal

"Case closed," Live Oak City Attorney Brant Bordsen said in reaction to the court's action.

"It's extremely disappointing that the California Supreme Court didn't grant review in this important case," said San Francisco attorney Joseph Elford, who represented plaintiff James Maral.

"There are going to be other cases of this sort. It would have been nice for the California Supreme Court to provide greater clarity than what we're looking at."

The Supreme Court also rejected petitions that sought to depublish the 3rd District Court of Appeals decision.

As it stands, the Live Oak decision can now be cited as precedent in similar California cases.

"It's binding on all trial courts in the state," Elford said.

In November, the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Sacramento said state law and previous court decisions "do not pre-empt a city's police power to prohibit the cultivation of all marijuana within that city."

The appeals court upheld an earlier decision by Sutter County Superior Court Judge Perry Parker.

The City Council approved the ordinance in December 2011.

Maral, individually and as trustee of the Live Oak Patients, Caregivers and Supporters Association, and others sued to stop enforcement of the ordinance. Maral suffers from compartment syndrome, a painful life- and limb-threatening condition caused by insufficient blood supply to muscles and nerves.

In upholding Live Oak's law, the appeals court cited its own decision in a legal challenge to Tehama County's medical marijuana law.

There is no "unfettered right to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes," the appeals court said.

Regulation of medical marijuana cultivation does not conflict with Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act approved by voters in 1996, or the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program approved by the Legislature, the appeals court said.

"The city has not gone out and sought active enforcement," Bordsen said. "It's still a complaint-driven system. I don't think it will mean anything more than business as usual."

The city, he said, "has noticed it's much nicer we don't have these grows next to schools and in other places where children would have access."

Bordsen said the city spent about $32,000 to defend the ordinance, money Live Oak can't recoup.