Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irjionk wrote

Reply to comment by plugubius in Pot twist: Cannabis firm refuses federal judge's ruling because its business isn't legal under federal law by Doc_Dante

How can the landlord plausibly argue that he did not know they are a cannabis business? He either leased to them knowing they are a cannabis business, or continued to lease to them when he found out. The underlying contract most likely acknowledges what the premises are going to be used for.

Your failure to appreciate what laws are being broken is not a defense to the clear illegality of the of what they are doing.

4

plugubius t1_irjj453 wrote

He doesn't need to argue he didn't know. This is a suit for rent, not a defense against a criminal charge of aiding and abetting. This is a question of state contract law, and Illinois is clear that the lease is enforceable. Federal law is vlear that state law applies in this situation.

2

Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irk69di wrote

Yes he does. So what? Doesn't matter. No it's not.

1

plugubius t1_irk7emx wrote

The applicability of state law is straight-forward Erie. The federal court must ask whether the Illinois Supreme Court would hold the lease is invalid. In answering that question, the federal court is allowed to ask whether federal law preempts any state court or legislative pronouncements, but preemption is narrow.

1