Perry v. Brown

Ninth Circuit

Perry v. Brown

639 F.3d 1153, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7311

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 23, 2011·No. No. 10-16696·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[1154]*1154ORDER

Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1756, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

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

[1154]*1154ORDER

Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1756, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

Perry v. Brown, 639 F.3d 1153, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7311 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

639 F.3d 1153 (Perry v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related