Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Eubanks v. Stengel

224 F.3d 576

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2000-07-31
Topic
general

OPINION PER CURIAM. After reviewing the briefs and the record and having heard oral argument, we held this case in abeyance pending the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). The appeal in Carhart involved a challenge to Nebraska’s partial birth abortion statute and presented issues very similar to those involved in this challenge to the Kentucky partial birth abortion statute. After carefully reviewing the decision in Carhart we conclude that it is controlling in this case, and that the district court was correct when it held that the Kentucky statute is unconstitutional.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Eubanks v. Stengel. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
EUBANKS v. DAVID STENGEL,224 F.3d 576(6th Cir. 2000)
SAMUEL G. EUBANKS, M.D., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. R. DAVID
STENGEL, COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
A. B. CHANDLER, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 98-6671.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued: December 15, 1999.
Decided and Filed: July 31, 2000.
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. No. 98-00383 — John G. Heyburn, II, District Judge.
ARGUED:D. Brent Irvin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellant.

A. Stephen Hut, Jr., WILMER, CUTLER PICKERING, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.ON BRIEF:D. Brent Irvin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellant.

A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Kimberly A. Parker, Matthew P. Previn, WILMER, CUTLER PICKERING, Washington, D.C., Carrie Y. Flaxman, DECHERT, PRICE RHOADS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Eve C. Gartner, PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., New York, New York, David A. Friedman, FERNANDEZ, FRIEDMAN, GROSSMAN KOHN, Louisville, Kentucky, Catherine Weiss, Jennifer Dalven, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York, New York, for Appellees.

Ann K. Benfield, Louisville, Kentucky, Adam L. Frank, SCHULTE ROTH ZABEL, New York, New York, Paul Benjamin Linton, Northbrook, Illinois, Theodore H. Amshoof, Jr., AMSHOFF AMSHOFF, Louisville, Kentucky, for Amici Curiae.
Before: GUY and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BECKWITH,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
After reviewing the briefs and the record and having heard oral argument, we held this case in abeyance pending the decision by the United States Supreme Court inStenberg v. Carhart, ___ U.S. ___120 S.Ct. 2597,147 L.E.2d 743(2000). The appeal inCarhartinvolved a challenge to Nebraska's partial birth abortion statute and presented issues very similar to those involved in this challenge to the Kentucky partial birth abortion statute.

After carefully reviewing the decision inCarhartwe conclude that it is controlling in this case, and that the district court was correct when it held that the Kentucky statute is unconstitutional.
AFFIRMED.Page 794
  1. The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. ↩