U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2001

Forbes v. Napolitano

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 11, 2001 · Paez, Schroeder, Sneed

247 F.3d 903; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2888; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3575; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6106; 2000 WL 33261027 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Concurrence by Judge SNEED

*904ORDER 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.”

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.