Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress

Ninth Circuit

Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress

897 F.3d 1224

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 1, 2018·No. No. 16-16997·Published·Cited by 61 cases

Opinion

The concurrence opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on May 16, 2018, and published at 890 F.3d 828, is amended as follows:

At opinion page 838, delete the sentence: < I respectfully suggest that we should take this opportunity to fix this error in our court's precedent with a call of the case en banc.>

And replace the deleted sentence with: < Although the propriety of interlocutory appeals for denials of anti-SLAPP motions was not briefed by the parties in this case, I respectfully suggest that we take the opportunity to fix this error in the future.>

*1225The Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc remains pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

The concurrence opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on May 16, 2018, and published at 890 F.3d 828, is amended as follows:

At opinion page 838, delete the sentence: < I respectfully suggest that we should take this opportunity to fix this error in our court's precedent with a call of the case en banc.>

And replace the deleted sentence with: < Although the propriety of interlocutory appeals for denials of anti-SLAPP motions was not briefed by the parties in this case, I respectfully suggest that we take the opportunity to fix this error in the future.>

*1225The Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc remains pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

897 F.3d 1224 (Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related