Younger Abstention

178 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Cate v. Oldham
  707 F.2d 1176· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-02 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State of Florida in federal court, but granted preliminary injunctive relief against the State Attorney pending certification of state law questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Thompson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 93×
  A federal court may grant a continuance of a habeas petition to allow a petitioner to exhaust unraised claims in state court, and a state attorney general can waive the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus.
• Landrigan v. City OF Warwick
  628 F.2d 736· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 85×
  The court held that a § 1983 claim for false arrest must be stayed pending resolution of the related state criminal charge, and that municipalities cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely on a respondeat superior theory.
• Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs
  670 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the date allocation provisions of the lease are not a per se violation of the Sherman Act and are immune from antitrust attack under the state action doctrine.
• Rowe v. Griffin
  676 F.2d 524· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the extraordinary circumstances exception to Younger abstention applies, justifying equitable relief.
• Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance
  587 F.2d 159· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that Texas obscenity statutes are unconstitutional as applied because they lack the procedural safeguards required by Freedman v. Maryland, specifically failing to ensure a prompt final judicial determination after preliminary injunctions are issued.
• Erdmann v. Stevens
  458 F.2d 1205· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 64×
  Federal courts should not intervene in state bar disciplinary proceedings unless there are exceptional circumstances like bad faith or irreparable harm not remediable in state court.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• Offet v. Solem
  823 F.2d 1256· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 57×
  The dissent argues that the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not apply to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions seeking monetary damages, even if the claim relates to the validity of good-time credit deprivation.
• Levy v. Lewis
  635 F.2d 960· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 55×
  The court concurred in the result, abstaining from exercising concurrent federal jurisdiction over an ERISA claim due to exceptional circumstances warranting abstention under the Colorado River doctrine, as a state court was already comprehensively adjudicating related rights.
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Soc'y of Separationists, Inc. v. White
  675 F.2d 680· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 53×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's dismissal, finding the plaintiffs lack standing and a ripe controversy.
• Keyes v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  521 F.2d 465· 10th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 50×
  The court concurred with the opinion that the trial court properly interpreted the Supreme Court's mandate regarding desegregation, despite the practical difficulties and the federal judiciary's role in managing school systems.
• Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley
  885 So. 2d 980· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-11-03 ·cited 49×
  Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former husband and attorney, appealed post-judgment dissolution orders requiring payment of attorney's fees and tuition reimbursements. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders and, granting the former wife's motion for sanctions, prohibit
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. City OF Long Beach
  772 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present for claims turning solely on contract interpretation, but diversity jurisdiction was improperly declined based on abstention principles. The court reversed dismissal of diversity claims and remanded, while affirmin
• Tarter v. Hury
  646 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of most claims, finding some barred by immunity and exhaustion requirements, and others failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• In re The Justices OF the Supreme Court OF Puerto RICO
  695 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico are entitled to a writ of mandamus to dismiss claims against them regarding membership and dues statutes, as they act as neutral adjudicators and no case or controversy exists. However, the Puerto Rico Bar Assoc
• The Bd. OF Educ. OF Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. NO. 365U v. Bosworth
  713 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 33×
  The court held that abstention was proper due to the progress of parallel state proceedings which had rendered much of the federal complaint moot, and modified the dismissal to a stay.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• Let's Help Florida v. McCRARY
  621 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 31×
  Florida statutes restricting the size of contributions to a single political committee in a referendum election violate the First Amendment rights of individuals who wish to contribute more than the statutory maximum.
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF N.C.
  713 F.2d 1024· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Burford doctrine, affirming the dismissal of the action. Federal courts should not intervene in complex state regulatory schemes involving important state policy when adequate state c
• Midkiff v. TOM
  702 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 30×
  The Hawaii Land Reform Act's eminent domain provisions are unconstitutional as they authorize the taking of private property for a predominantly private use, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Evans v. City OF Chicago
  689 F.2d 1286· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 30×
• Prof'l Plan Exam'rs OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Lefante
  750 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred by extending restraints without proper findings and by improperly abstaining from deciding federal constitutional and antitrust claims.
• Nat'l City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp.
  687 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar an injunction against state court proceedings when federal relief is sought but not yet granted.
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
  825 F.2d 1475· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the state court judgment was not final for preclusion purposes under Alabama law and that the injunction was proper under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Gibson v. Jackson
  578 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case pending the outcome of the state habeas corpus proceedings.
• United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Muir
  792 F.2d 356· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Pullman abstention is improper in this case, partly because the potential damage to USAA's business outweighs state interests, and partly because abstention should not be used to avoid ruling on federal preemption claims.
• Harris v. Pernsley
  755 F.2d 338· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that res judicata, the eleventh amendment, official immunity, and abstention doctrines did not bar the inmates' claims for damages and injunctive relief.
• RED Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance
  648 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while most provisions of the Texas obscenity statute are constitutional, abstention is appropriate for three specific provisions pending state court interpretation to avoid premature constitutional adjudication.
• Tang v. App. Div. OF the NEW York Supreme Court
  487 F.2d 138· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 26×
• Salem INN, Inc. v. Frank
  501 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal courts should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other special circumstances, even if the federal suit was filed first.
• Worldwide Church OF GOD v. McNAIR
  805 F.2d 888· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 24×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court's judgment, requiring review of that decision.
• Ky. W. Va. GAS Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
  791 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Burford and Younger doctrines because the plaintiffs' preemption claims presented federal questions inappropriate for abstention and the procedural posture did not warrant Younger abstention.
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  673 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the appointment of a special master to supervise compliance with a court order may be an abuse of discretion, a retroactive reversal is meaningless due to time and funds expended.
• Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Twp.
  671 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, as the case did not present unsettled state law questions or important state policies threatened by federal adjudication.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Hunt v. Roth
  648 F.2d 1148· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 23×
  The court should not decide the constitutional question presented because the case is moot due to the defendant's conviction and the parties' stipulation does not create a justiciable controversy.
• Al Derrickson v. City OF Danville
  845 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while a consent decree approving a voting rights settlement remains valid, the state is not precluded from prosecuting the officials who negotiated it.
• Razatos v. The Colo. Supreme Court
  746 F.2d 1429· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the due process claim and that the Colorado attorney disciplinary scheme does not violate due process, even when credibility is at issue, because the Supreme Court retains ultimate review power and discre
• THE News-Journal Corp. v. Honorable S. James Foxman
  939 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 21×
  The News-Journal Corporation challenged a state trial court's restrictive order prohibiting extrajudicial statements by trial participants in a sensational murder-for-hire case. The federal district court dismissed the action under Younger abstention, finding that the News-Journa
• Del. Valley Citizens' Council FOR Clean AIR v. Commonwealth OF PA.
  755 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 21×
  A state court has no power to disturb or enjoin compliance with federal court decrees, whether final or preliminary, due to the supremacy clause.
• Earle A. Partington v. Gedan
  880 F.2d 116· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred that the Hawaii Supreme Court should be allowed to determine its own justices' impartiality, as prior rulings do not automatically constitute disqualifying bias under federal law.
• Polykoff v. Collins
  816 F.2d 1326· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Arizona's interpretation of "prurient interest" in its obscenity statute, as reflected in the Bartanen jury instructions, does not unconstitutionally overreach protected speech, and that abstention doctrines were inapplicable.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  798 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining under Burford and Younger doctrines in a case involving federal preemption claims under the Federal Power Act concerning state regulation of retail utility rates.
• Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame
  567 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the City's restrictive bidding policy, requiring unionized printers, was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and thus violated equal protection principles.
• In re Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union # 107. Appeal of Ronald & Frances Gajkowski
  888 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal was moot because a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision reversed the prior judgment, rendering the appellate court unable to grant effective relief.
• Williams v. Hepting
  844 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-18 ·cited 18×
  Witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity for testimony given at pretrial hearings, and federal courts should stay, rather than dismiss, civil rights claims for damages that cannot be redressed in ongoing state proceedings.
• Brunken v. Carol Lance & the Ill. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  807 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris, and that the father's due process claim failed because the alleged deprivation was at most negligent, not intentional. Injunctive relief against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendmen
• Ada-Cascade Watch Co., Inc. v. Cascade Res. Recovery, Inc.
  720 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that plaintiffs' failure to provide the requisite sixty-day notice before commencing suit under the RCRA citizen suit provision mandates dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.