# Perry v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 23, 2011 · 639 F.3d 1153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8411947

## Case

- **Full name:** Kristin M. PERRY Sandra B. Stier Paul T. Katami Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, 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, and Dennis Hollingsworth Gail J. Knight Martin F. Gutierrez Hak-Shing William Tam Mark A. Jansson Protect-marriage.com — Yes On 8, A Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 23, 2011
- **Citations:** 639 F.3d 1153; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7311
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Hawkins, Reinhardt, Smith
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8411947

## Opinion text

*1154 ORDER
Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1756 , 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8411947. Public record. Not legal advice.