Constance Malmin v. Kay Manweiler, Boise State Bar, Individuals: Does I - X, Inclusive, Roes I - X, Inclusive

64 F.3d 666 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Constance MALMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kay MANWEILER, Boise State Bar, Individuals: Does I - X, Inclusive, Roes I - X, Inclusive Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35521. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 20, 1995. * Decided Aug. 15, 1995. 1 Before: NOONAN and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and LEW, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** OVERVIEW 3 Appellant Constance Malmin appeals the district court's summary judgment ruling on her 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action challenging a proposed Idaho Bar Association resolution which disfavored some types of attorney advertising. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . WE AFFIRM. ANALYSIS 4 I. Claims Arising from the Proposed Resolution A. Standard of Review 5 Questions of mootness are reviewed de novo. Friends of the Payette v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co., 988 F.2d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 1993); Williams v. United States, 905 F.2d 308 , 310 (9th…