Legal Opinion

Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 21, 1997No. 96-17016PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Stephen Neely, Attorney for the County of Pima, as class representative, appeals the district court’s holding that the State of Arizona’s parental consent abortion statute is unconstitutional, and its order permanently enjoining enforcement of the statute. Neely also appeals the district court’s decision to permit the plaintiffs to supplement the complaint that formed the basis of a previous action between the same parties, and its decision to proceed under the class certification of that previous action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we hold that the district court…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Griffin v. School Bd. of Prince Edward Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Keith v. VolpeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  3. Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1939
  4. Poindexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1968
  5. United States v. ReitenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Mullen v. SurtshinDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
  2. Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. NeelyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  3. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. KrugerDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2014
  4. (PC) Bowers v. El Dorado County JailDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  5. (PC) Dao v. TaborDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API