Forbes v. Napolitano

Ninth Circuit

Forbes v. Napolitano

247 F.3d 903, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2888, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3575, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6106, 2000 WL 33261027

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2001

DocketNo. 99-17372

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 F.3d 903 (Forbes v. Napolitano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forbes v. Napolitano, 247 F.3d 903, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2888, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3575, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6106, 2000 WL 33261027 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Concurrence by Judge SNEED

[904]*904ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Appellants have filed a petition for rehearing that pertains to one sentence of the court’s opinion. The sentence reads: “But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may not be impermissibly vague in any of its applications.” Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.2000). The petition for rehearing is GRANTED to the extent that the sentence in question is deleted, and the following substituted: “But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may be invalidated on vagueness grounds even if it could conceivably have some valid application.”

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

Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Concurrence by Judge SNEED

[904]*904ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Appellants have filed a petition for rehearing that pertains to one sentence of the court’s opinion. The sentence reads: “But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may not be impermissibly vague in any of its applications.” Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.2000). The petition for rehearing is GRANTED to the extent that the sentence in question is deleted, and the following substituted: “But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may be invalidated on vagueness grounds even if it could conceivably have some valid application.”

Fred Forbes Margaret Bohn John L. Summers Ann S. Anderson, Stuart R. Snider George Melcher, Jr. Christopher Tisch Planned Parenthood of Centraland Northern Arizona, Inc. Robert Tamis v. Janet Napolitano, in Her Capacity as Attorney General, State of Arizona Stephen Neely, in His Capacity as County Attorney, Pima County, Arizona

247 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 F.3d 903, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2888, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3575, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6106, 2000 WL 33261027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-napolitano-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack