Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-11
Citations: 247 F.3d 903
Docket Number: No. 99-17372
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before: SNEED, SCHROEDER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 247
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
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:
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."