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, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Janet Napolitano, in Her Capacity As Attorney General, State of Arizona; Stephen Neely, in His Capacity As County Attorney, Pima County, Arizona, Defendants-appellants, 260 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2001)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 260 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2001) Argued and Submitted October 3, 2000--San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled December 29, 2000Order Amending Opinion Filed April 11, 2001Second Amendment Filed August 9, 2001

NOTE: SEE OPINIONS AT 236 F.3d 1009, AND 247 F.3d 903.

Bebe J. Anderson, The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, New York, N.Y. and Michael Owen Miller, Miller Smith LLP, Tucson, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

Charles R. Pyle, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Arizona, for the defendants-appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona William D. Browning, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-96-00288-WDB

Before: Joseph T. Sneed, Mary M. Schroeder, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

Prior report: 236 F.3d 1009 SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.

The opinion filed December 29, 2000 is amended as follows: at page 4510 of the slip opinion, lines 5-6 from the bottom, after the cite to City of Chicago v. Morales, add the parenthetical "(plurality)", so that it reads: City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1999) (plurality).

The mandate may now issue.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.