Carson City’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a hemp grower was denied in part by Nevada’s First Judicial District Court in Carson City.
In March, the District Attorney’s Office filed the motion in response to a suit filed by Tahoe Hemp LLC, which alleges the city is denying the business access to open space land to cultivate hemp. The previous owner of the property, commonly known as Buzzy’s Ranch, has the right to continue to use or lease the land for agricultural purposes.
The city argued, among other things, that the purchase and sale agreement executed in 2010 between the city and a family trust did not anticipate hemp growing, which was not legal at the time, nor that the family trust has a protectable protective private property interest.
The court rejected both those claims and said others, including that hemp growing there would increase the city’s liability, are questions that can proceed to trial.
The April 17 order also says that if Tahoe Hemp wants to proceed it must add two more parties to the suit: Nevada State Lands, which provided the grant used to purchase the property, and Jimmie Peter Jarrad Children’s Trust, the previous owner’s family trust.
If Tahoe Hemp amends the suit, the city and the state will have 45 days to respond again, according to District Attorney Jason Woodbury.
-->Carson City’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a hemp grower was denied in part by Nevada’s First Judicial District Court in Carson City.
In March, the District Attorney’s Office filed the motion in response to a suit filed by Tahoe Hemp LLC, which alleges the city is denying the business access to open space land to cultivate hemp. The previous owner of the property, commonly known as Buzzy’s Ranch, has the right to continue to use or lease the land for agricultural purposes.
The city argued, among other things, that the purchase and sale agreement executed in 2010 between the city and a family trust did not anticipate hemp growing, which was not legal at the time, nor that the family trust has a protectable protective private property interest.
The court rejected both those claims and said others, including that hemp growing there would increase the city’s liability, are questions that can proceed to trial.
The April 17 order also says that if Tahoe Hemp wants to proceed it must add two more parties to the suit: Nevada State Lands, which provided the grant used to purchase the property, and Jimmie Peter Jarrad Children’s Trust, the previous owner’s family trust.
If Tahoe Hemp amends the suit, the city and the state will have 45 days to respond again, according to District Attorney Jason Woodbury.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment