PERRY v. BROWN

Nos. 10-16696, 11-16577.

681 F.3d 1065 (2012)

Kristin M. PERRY; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, Hak-Shing William Tam, Intervenor-Defendant, and Dennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Mark A. Jansson; ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. Kristin M. Perry; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, Hak-Shing William Tam, Intervenor-Defendant, and Dennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Mark A. Jansson; ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 5, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David Boies , Rosanne C. Baxter, Esquire , Counsel, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, Theodore Olson , Matthew McGill , Amir C. Tayrani , Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esquire , Christopher D. Dusseault , Theane Evangelis Kapur , Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Ethan Douglas Dettmer, Esquire , Enrique Antonio Monagas , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jeremy Michael Goldman, Esquire , Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Oakland, CA, Theodore H. Uno , Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Hollywood, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Ronald P. Flynn , Therese Stewart , Chief Deputy City Attorney, Christine Van Aken , Erin Bernstein , Vince Chhabria, Esquire , Danny Chou , Dennis J. Herrera , City Attorney, Mollie Mindes Lee , Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tamar Pachter , Daniel Powell , Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr. , Andrew W. Stroud , for Defendants.

David Thompson , Charles J. Cooper , Nicole Jo Moss , Peter A. Patterson , Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC, James Andrew Campbell , Litigation Staff Counsel, Brian William Raum , Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ, Andrew P. Pugno , Law Offices of Andrew P. Pugno, Folsom, CA, for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

Order; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge O'SCANNLAIN.


ORDER

A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge N.R. Smith would grant the petition.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

The mandate...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases