Legal Opinion
California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 9, 2006No. 05-17292, 05-17312PublishedCited by 83 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge.
We consider whether health care providers are entitled to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal appropriations rider enacted to protect their interests.
Facts
California, like a number of other states, has a statute that compels emergency health care providers to deliver medical services “for any condition in which the person [seeking such services] is in danger of loss of life, or serious injury or illness.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1317(a). The statute makes no exception for abortion services and can therefore be understood to mandate…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Donnelly v. GlickmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by83 opinions
- Wilderness Society v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- State of Texas v. USACourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2015
- City of Emeryville v. The Sherwin-Williams CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.