Client Alerts & Insights

Medical Marijuana: Ohio Announces Expansion of Dispensary Locations

September 20, 2021

Ohio has released application materials and information related to the up to 73 additional provisional medical marijuana dispensary licenses the state plans to approve in the coming months. There are currently 57 dispensaries in Ohio, which would bring the total number to 130 if all 73 are approved. Here are some key takeaways from the information released on the second round of applications:

  • Application window: November 4, 2021 – November 18, 2021 (RFA II)
  • Application fee of $5,000
  • Applications are site-specific – must have eligible property secured prior to application
  • Up to 73 provisional dispensary licenses will be issued through a lottery process
  • The state is divided into 31 geographic dispensary districts and the drawing will occur according to available provisional dispensary licenses in each district
    • Applications must specify the districts in which they are applying
    • No owner may possess more than five (5) dispensaries in Ohio
  • Drive-Through Windows will be permitted
  • Must include site-specific plan, professionally prepared survey, signed form from local zoning official, etc.

Benesch Law has an impressive track record for securing multiple licenses for Ohio medical marijuana applicants during the first round of applications – a much more robust, merit-based, competitive process. Reach out to one of our Regulated Industry experts to learn how we can help best prepare your business for the upcoming medical marijuana dispensary lottery process.

Rachel Winder at rwinder@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9316.

Kristopher J. Chandler at kchandler@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9377.

Rob Zimmerman at rzimmerman@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4437. 

Latest News

Client Alerts & Insights 5.1.26

$2B Trade Secrets Verdict Overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court

Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court vacated a $2B jury award and ordered a new trial in a state trade secrets action. The justices held that the circuit court judge made four significant errors leading to Virginia’s largest jury award. Significantly, according to the justices, the circuit court judge put an improper burden of proof on defendants to show that its sales were unrelated to the misappropriation to avoid plaintiff being awarded defendant’s full sales revenue as opposed to the plaintiff having the burden to show defendant’s actions proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.