Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.

786 F.3d 727, 2015 WL 2343967
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 786 F.3d 733
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 18, 2015·No. 12-57302·Published

Opinions

Order by Chief Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.

ORDER

As noted in the order filed March 14, 2014, a judge of this Court made a sua sponte request for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s order of February 28, 2014 denying an emergency stay of the panel’s prior orders, as amended, directing Google and YouTube to remove immediately all or part of a film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” from their platforms worldwide and to prevent further uploads.

Pursuant to General Order 5.5(b), a vote of the non-recused active judges was conducted as to whether to rehear the panel order en banc. A majority of the non-recused active judges did not vote in favor of rehearing en banc. Therefore, an order was issued on March 14, 2014, pursuant to General Order 5.5(c), returning control of the case to the panel.

Separately from the en banc call as to the panel’s stay order, a judge of this Court made a request for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s amended opinion. A majority of the non-recused active judges voted in favor of rehearing the case en banc, and an order was issued on November 12, 2014 ordering that the case be reheard en banc. Oral argument was held before the en banc panel on December 15, 2014. The en banc panel has issued its decision, which is filed concomitantly with this order.

This amended order denying rehearing en banc as to the panel order of February 28, 2014 denying an emergency stay of the panel’s prior orders is filed for the purpose of allowing publication of a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc as to the panel order.

Therefore, the order of March 14, 2014 denying rehearing en banc as to the panel order of February 28, 2014 is reinstated and filed for publication. This amended order does not affect the subsequent en banc proceedings in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 727, 2015 WL 2343967 (9th Cir. 2015).

786 F.3d 727 (Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
558 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Terminiello v. Chicago
337 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
372 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Cox v. Louisiana
379 U.S. 536 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Stanley v. Georgia
394 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Street v. New York
394 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Cohen v. California
403 U.S. 15 (Supreme Court, 1971)
New York Times Co. v. United States
403 U.S. 713 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Elrod v. Burns
427 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
449 U.S. 368 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myers
461 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Texas v. Johnson
491 U.S. 397 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Stewart v. Abend
495 U.S. 207 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement
505 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Eldred v. Ashcroft
537 U.S. 186 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.
786 F.3d 733 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Abend v. MCA, Inc.
863 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)