Younger Abstention

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

• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54 v. Danziger
  709 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
• Coley v. Clinton
  635 F.2d 1364· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court correctly abstained from ruling on commitment and release procedures due to unclear state law and affirmed the abstention regarding confinement conditions. It vacated rulings on confinement constitutionality and class certification, remandin
• Tex. Emp'rs' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson
  820 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 17×
  The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) preempts state law claims for bad faith withholding of benefits, but the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings based on preemption alone.
• Stephen Rindley, D.D.S. v. Gallagher
  929 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the lawsuit based on Pullman and Burford abstention doctrines, as there were no unsettled questions of state law that would avoid the federal constitutional issues, nor would federal review disrupt state regulatory effort
• Suburban Trails, Inc. v. NEW Jersey Transit Corp.
  800 F.2d 361· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the preemption and antitrust issues were not ripe for review because the state agency's action was not final and was subject to modification by a federal agency. The due process claim regarding future subsidies was also not ripe, but a factual development was
• Schall v. Joyce
  885 F.2d 101· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 15×
  A district court's stay order, which effectively surrenders jurisdiction to a state court to litigate essential parts of a federal suit, is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Furthermore, abstention under Younger v. Harris is appropriate when state proceedings are jud
• Beltran v. State OF Cal., & United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO
  857 F.2d 542· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 15×
  The district court erred in refusing to abstain under Younger v. Harris, as the state proceedings implicated important state interests and provided an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.
• Stanley N. Parker, D.M.D. v. Commonwealth OF Ky.
  818 F.2d 504· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 14×
  The statute is constitutional as it advances a substantial governmental interest in regulating professional standards for dentists.
• Sullivan v. The City OF Pittsburgh
  811 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal plaintiffs had standing, the district court did not err in refusing to abstain, the statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and the district court did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Act.
• Monaghan v. Deakins
  798 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Younger abstention did not require dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for damages and return of property, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. The Composite State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  656 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should abstain from enjoining the state proceedings due to a lack of clear irreparable injury.
• ROY v. Jones
  484 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the case barred by res judicata, a ground different from the district court's abstention reasoning.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  446 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court vacated its original opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal interference with state prosecutions.
• Sable Commc'ns OF Cal., Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  890 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a case or controversy existed, Pacific Bell acted under color of state law, and abstention was not required. However, the CPUC is immune from suit under section 1983, and the attorney fee award must be reallocated between defendants.
• Bath Mem'l Hosp. v. Me. Health Care Fin. Comm'n
  853 F.2d 1007· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from deciding the hospitals' Medicare and legal costs claims, as these claims did not present issues of state law that would avoid federal questions, nor did they unduly interfere with Maine's regulatory system. However,
• Davis v. Lansing
  851 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable harm or prosecutorial bad faith.
• Phillips v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
  657 F.2d 554· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' due process rights were not violated by PHEAA suing them in Dauphin County, as adequate state procedures existed for them to challenge venue or seek relief.
• CSXT, Inc. v. Pitz
  883 F.2d 468· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 12×
  Abstention is appropriate in preemption cases involving ongoing state administrative proceedings, even when federal law is claimed to preempt state action.
• United States v. Anderson Cnty.
  705 F.2d 184· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that abstention under Pullman and Younger doctrines was inappropriate because the interpretation of the contract and the constitutionality of the tax presented federal questions, and the relevant state tax statutes were unambiguous.
• Howell v. State BAR OF Tex.
  674 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Howell's civil rights action, as neither jurisdictional nor res judicata bars prevented its adjudication on the merits.
• COX v. Planning Dist. I Cmty. Mental Health & Mental Retardation Servs. Bd.
  669 F.2d 940· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while abstention was proper due to unsettled state law, the district court should have stayed the action rather than dismissing it.
• Foley v. The Ala. State BAR
  648 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state action exemption barred the antitrust claims, but that the First Amendment claims were improperly decided on summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues.
• Garden State BAR Ass'n & the N.J. Ass'n of Black Women Lawyers v. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm.
  643 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with state attorney disciplinary proceedings under Younger v. Harris, as these proceedings are judicial in nature and offer an adequate forum for constitutional claims.
• Arnold Bickham, M.D. v. Joyce C. Lashof, M.D.
  620 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that abstention was not properly exercised because the state proceedings did not afford an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise his constitutional claims, and the interests of the plaintiff and the state-proceeding entity were not sufficiently intertwine
• Leonard v. The City OF Columbus
  565 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-26 ·cited 12×
• Almodovar v. Ira Reiner
  832 F.2d 1138· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 11×
  The district court properly abstained under the Pullman doctrine but erred in dismissing the case; jurisdiction should be retained pending state court resolution.
• Paul E. Bettencourt, M.D. v. Bd. OF Registration IN Med. OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  904 F.2d 772· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Younger abstention was appropriate, requiring dismissal of the federal action due to the pending state judicial review of the medical license revocation.
• Thompson v. Florida Bar
  526 F. Supp. 2d 1264· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Younger/Middlesex abstention applies to the plaintiff's claims, requiring dismissal of the federal action.
• Ford Motor Co. & Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ins. Comm'r OF the Commonwealth OF Pa. Appeal of Pa. Ass'n OF Indep. Ins. Agents
  874 F.2d 926· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Pennsylvania's statute prohibiting affiliations between insurance companies and savings and loan institutions is preempted by federal law when applied to the acquisition of failing thrifts, but not when applied to other affiliations. The court also affirmed th
• Darrel Ray Leonard and Johnny A. Casselbury v. L.T. Hammond, Jr.
  804 F.2d 838· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 8×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not first exhausted state remedies, even if the petitioner has been released from custody.
• Dist. Props. Assocs. v. The Dist. OF Columbia
  743 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 8×
  The District Court erred in dismissing the landlords' claims based on exclusive jurisdiction and the principle of comity (Younger abstention).
• Miner v. Brackney
  719 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claims because Miner's defamation claim is not actionable under § 1983 and Simmons's claim improperly sought federal intervention in a pending state court conviction.
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Soc'y of Separationists, Inc. v. Hill
  641 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Pullman abstention was inappropriate for claims concerning the exclusion of atheists from holding judicial office in Texas, and that O'Hair had no adequate remedy at law in Texas courts.
• Littleton v. Honorable Arthur O. Fisher and Honorable Harry E. Groves
  530 F.2d 691· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 8×
  State court judges and referees are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in their judicial capacity.
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't, Inc. v. Nassau Cnty.
  488 F.2d 1353· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm, given the unresolved state law questions regarding the plaintiff orga
• Duty Free Shop, Inc. v. Administracion de Terrenos de Puerto RICO
  889 F.2d 1181· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 7×
  The federal court correctly abstained from interfering with an ongoing state eminent domain proceeding under the Younger doctrine.
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Garrett J. Barry
  825 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction was properly issued to protect the plaintiff's remedy and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Hughes v. Lipscher
  906 F.2d 961· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding the case pending a decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the interpretation of a state administrative directive.
• Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n OF R.I. v. Pfeiffer
  832 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from adjudicating a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, as such direct challenges are not subject to abstention doctrines when no state proceedings are pending.
• Moses v. Cnty. OF Kenosha
  826 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the entire action after adjudicating the federal constitutional claim and abstaining on the state law claim.
• Forest Hills Util. Co. & David R. Pheils, Jr. v. City OF Heath
  539 F.2d 592· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from hearing the utility company's claims, but that abstention was not appropriate for plaintiff Pheils' separate claims.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• Harder v. Rafferty
  709 F. Supp. 1111· M.D. Fla.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the parties in the Indiana action were not identical to the parties in the current federal action. The court deferred ruling on the statute of limitations issue pending further briefing.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran
  959 F.2d 634· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 4×
  A federal court should not interfere with ongoing state litigation by issuing an injunction, especially when the litigant has an adequate remedy through appeal after a final judgment.
• Sabato v. Fla. Dep't of Ins.
  768 F. Supp. 1562· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over actions that interfere with state-supervised insurance liquidation proceedings, citing Burford, Younger, and Colorado River abstention doctrines.
• James A. Privitera, M.D. v. Cal. Bd. OF Med. Quality Assurance
  926 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's stay order, which effectively denied a preliminary injunction, was immediately appealable and that the stay itself was improper as it did not meet the criteria for any established abstention doctrine. The court also found that the district
• Seneca-Cayuga Tribe OF Oklahoma v. State OF Okla. ex rel. David L. Thompson
  874 F.2d 709· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court was not required to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction and properly issued a preliminary injunction against the state's interference with tribal bingo operations.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. THE Council OF the City OF NEW Orleans
  850 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the utility's claims, affirming the principle that federal courts should defer to state regulatory processes in complex utility rate matters.
• Guiney v. Roache
  833 F.2d 1079· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that abstention under the Pullman doctrine was improper because the state constitutional provision at issue was parallel to the federal constitutional provision, and the meaning of the challenged rule was not unsettled under state law. The court also found that the
• The Atchison v. Bd. OF Equalization OF the State OF Cal.
  795 F.2d 1442· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over claims of discriminatory state taxation of railroad property under federal statute.