Eubanks v. Stengel

Sixth Circuit

Eubanks v. Stengel

224 F.3d 576, 2000 WL 1050914

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided July 31, 2000·No. No. 98-6671·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and the record and having heard oral argument, we held this case in abeyance pending the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). The appeal in Carhart involved a challenge to Nebraska’s partial birth abortion statute and presented issues very similar to those involved in this challenge to the Kentucky partial birth abortion statute.

After carefully reviewing the decision in Carhart we conclude that it is controlling in this case, and that the district court was correct when it held that the Kentucky statute is unconstitutional.

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and the record and having heard oral argument, we held this case in abeyance pending the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). The appeal in Carhart involved a challenge to Nebraska’s partial birth abortion statute and presented issues very similar to those involved in this challenge to the Kentucky partial birth abortion statute.

After carefully reviewing the decision in Carhart we conclude that it is controlling in this case, and that the district court was correct when it held that the Kentucky statute is unconstitutional.

AFFIRMED.

Eubanks v. Stengel, 224 F.3d 576, 2000 WL 1050914 (6th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

224 F.3d 576 (Eubanks v. Stengel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related