Case ID: f3d_247/html/0903-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fred FORBES; Margaret Bohn; John L. Summers; Ann S. Anderson, Stuart R. Snider; George Melcher, Jr.; Christopher Tisch; Planned Parenthood of Central and 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.
    No. 99-17372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 2000
    Filed Dec. 29, 2000
    Order Amending Opinion Filed April 11, 2001
    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.
    Before: SNEED, SCHROEDER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Concurrence by Judge SNEED

ORDER 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.”