NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff–Appellee, and American Meat Institute, Plaintiff–Intervenor, v. Kamala D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; State of California, Defendants–Appellants, and The Humane Society of the United States; Farm Sanctuary, Inc.; Humane Farming Association; Animal Legal Defense Fund, Defendant–Intervenors. National Meat Association, Plaintiff–Appellee, and American Meat Institute, Plaintiff–Intervenor, v. Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; State of California, Defendants, and The Humane Society of the United States; Farm Sanctuary, Inc.; Humane Farming Association; Animal Legal Defense Fund, Defendants–Intervenors–Appellants.

Share

| Country of Origin:  United States Court Name:  United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Primary Citation:  680 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir., 2012) Date of Decision:  Jurisdiction Level:  Federal Alternate Citation:  Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6314 Judges:  Circuit Judges. ALEX KOZINSKI Chief Judge STEPHEN REINHARDT and BARRY G. SILVERMAN Attorneys:  Zachary Bulthuis, Kent J. Schmidt, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Irvine, CA, Timothy J. Droske, Heather M. McCann, Esquire, Steven J. Wells, Esquire, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff–Appellee. Susan K. Smith, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Bruce A. Wagman, Schiff Hardin LLP, San Francisco, CA, Peter Alfred Brandt, HSUS APL, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellant. Docket Num:  Nos. 09–15483, 09–15486.

Summary:

This opinion vacates National Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir., 2010) and affirms the judgment of the district court.

ORDER


In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in National Meat Ass'n v. Harris, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 965, 181 L.Ed.2d 950 (2012), we vacate our prior opinion in National Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.2010), and affirm the judgment of the district court.


The mandate shall issue forthwith. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b).


Parallel Citations
12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6314