• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
5 results

Pierre Kory, et al., Petitioner v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al.

Docket 24-932, Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 27, 2025)
Deadline(Due April 16, 2025)
Petitioner Pierre Kory
Respondent California Attorney General Rob Bonta, et al.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Waiver of right of respondents - Main Document

Document Pierre Kory, et al., Petitioner v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al., 24-932, Waiver of right of respondents, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 7, 2025)
I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE to the petition for a writ of certiorari unless one is requested by the Court.
Please check the appropriate box: ® Rob Banta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Reji Varghese, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Medical Board of California; and Erika Calderon, in her official capacity as Executive Officer of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California.
I am filing this waiver on behalf of the following respondent(s): Please check the appropriate box: I am a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.
(Filing Instructions: Mail the original signed form to: Supreme Court, Attn: Clerk's Office, 1 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20543).
No additional certificate of service or cover letter is required.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Certificate of Word Count

Document Pierre Kory, et al., Petitioner v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al., 24-932, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025)
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 6,903 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 25th day of February, 2025.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 25th day of February, 2025.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Proof of Service

Document Pierre Kory, et al., Petitioner v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al., 24-932, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Proof of Service (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025)
I, Bryant Lee, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that: I am retained by Counsel of Record for the Petitioners.
That on the same date as above, I sent to this Court forty copies of the within Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and a three hundred dollar filing fee check through FedEx Overnight Mail.
In addition, the brief has been submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026 #131015
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Petition

Document Pierre Kory, et al., Petitioner v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al., 24-932, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Petition (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025)
The Kory decisions say that none 1.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court that Petitioners showed none of those three circumstances in their “as applied” challenge to Section 2234(c).
None of the Plaintiffs have been prosecuted under the statute, and Defendants have not threatened enforcement against them.
Plaintiffs nonetheless contend there is a threat that Defendants may prosecute them under the statute for making protected speech.
Nonetheless, “[w]hile drawing the line between speech and conduct can be difficult, [the Supreme Court’s] precedents have long drawn it.” NIFLA, 585 U.S. at 769.
Although defendants did not expressly argue that plaintiffs lack standing, the court nonetheless has a duty to evaluate Article III standing.
Appendix B 23a Nonetheless, a plaintiff challenging a law on First Amendment grounds must still demonstrate that “there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” See Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 159; see also Italian ...
Although there may be areas of uncertainty when it comes to COVID-19, there are nonetheless types of treatment that are clearly not permissible.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search