-
701 F.2d 7·
1st Cir.·
1983-03-01
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against a threatened state prosecution for violating a town's Public Display Minors Law.
-
613 F.2d 138·
6th Cir.·
1980-01-02
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court correctly abstained under the Pullman doctrine to allow Ohio courts to interpret the challenged involuntary commitment statute.
-
274 F. Supp. 2d 1334·
S.D. Fla.·
2003-08-05
·cited 3×
Federal law governing pilot qualifications and capacity to operate commercial aircraft in interstate commerce preempts state criminal laws, and therefore, the state lacks jurisdiction to prosecute federally certified pilots for operating an aircraft while under the influence of a
-
884 F.2d 1043·
7th Cir.·
1989-09-20
·cited 3×
The court held that the district court properly abstained under Younger v. Harris in favor of a parallel state court action and did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions under Rule 11.
-
723 F. Supp. 1448·
M.D. Fla.·
1989-07-07
·cited 3×
The court held that abstention was appropriate, recommending dismissal or a stay of the federal action pending the outcome of parallel state court proceedings.
-
798 F.2d 815·
5th Cir.·
1986-08-29
·cited 3×
The court held that abstention was appropriate for Eitel's § 1983 claim against the attorneys because it was inextricably intertwined with the state court proceedings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-21
·cited 2×
This is a case where a pro se plaintiff, Leo Sean Palmer, filed only a Verified Petition for Emergency Injunction without filing a complaint. The court recommended denying the petition without prejudice because federal courts lack power to issue injunctive relief without an opera
-
444 F. Supp. 2d 1227·
N.D. Fla.·
2006-08-14
·cited 2×
Qui tam relators, lacking specific state authorization beyond their role in filing lawsuits, are not 'lawfully authorized State auditors and examiners' and thus cannot conduct visitations or examine national bank records under 12 U.S.C. § 484(b).
-
977 F.2d 37·
1st Cir.·
1992-10-16
·cited 2×
The court held that the summary judgment record was insufficient to determine as a matter of law whether a constitutional right was violated or if the official's actions were objectively reasonable.
-
970 F.2d 1195·
3d Cir.·
1992-07-15
·cited 2×
The court held that federal adjudication of most of GPI's claims would not interfere with ongoing state proceedings, thus reversing the district court's dismissal on Younger abstention grounds for those claims.
-
926 F.2d 567·
6th Cir.·
1991-02-27
·cited 2×
The court held that the Federal Railroad Safety Act preempts Ohio's regulation requiring railroad bridge walkways because the FRA has 'covered' the subject matter by explicitly declining to issue such a regulation.
-
898 F.2d 1302·
7th Cir.·
1990-04-06
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in applying Younger abstention to claims for prospective relief, but affirmed dismissal of claims for monetary and retroactive relief based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.
-
887 F.2d 49·
4th Cir.·
1989-10-05
·cited 2×
Federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings unless there's a clear showing that the state proceeding won't adequately protect constitutional rights.
-
710 F. Supp. 318·
M.D. Fla.·
1989-02-13
·cited 2×
The court held that abstention was not warranted, and granted dismissal in part for claims related to damages and statutory notice, while denying dismissal for injunctive relief and dismissing claims based on unconstitutional bond conditions and conspiracy.
-
868 F.2d 459·
1st Cir.·
1989-02-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Burford and Younger, as the case could be managed to avoid undue intrusion into state judicial operations and the remedy sought was permissible.
-
747 F.2d 42·
1st Cir.·
1984-10-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to warrant federal intervention in pending state criminal proceedings, despite a colorable double jeopardy claim.
-
650 F.2d 1310·
2d Cir.·
1981-05-11
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that ERISA does not preempt the New York Human Rights Law and that the plaintiff's other federal claims lack merit.
-
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22021·
N.D. Fla.·
2001-12-27
·cited 1×
The federal antitrust laws do not apply to the 'business of baseball,' including contraction, and this exemption extends to state antitrust laws.
-
838 F. Supp. 580·
S.D. Fla.·
1993-10-29
·cited 1×
The court held that abstention under the Pullman and Burford doctrines was appropriate because the validity of the county ordinance under state law presented unsettled questions of substantial local concern that could moot federal constitutional issues.
-
990 F.2d 745·
3d Cir.·
1993-03-31
·cited 1×
A federal court cannot grant relief under § 1983 for alleged transcript inaccuracies affecting a criminal conviction unless the conviction itself has been successfully challenged, as such claims are premature and essentially constitute a collateral attack on the conviction.
-
983 F.2d 718·
6th Cir.·
1993-01-11
·cited 1×
The court held that plaintiffs' claims for damages, injunctive, and declaratory relief were barred by judicial immunity, state action immunity, Younger abstention, and mootness.
-
893 F. Supp. 1057·
S.D. Fla.·
1992-08-13
·cited 1×
The court held that most of the plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims are barred by res judicata and the full faith and credit statute due to prior state court rulings.
-
719 F. Supp. 1076·
S.D. Fla.·
1989-08-23
·cited 1×
The court held that abstention from exercising federal jurisdiction was appropriate due to unsettled state law and Florida's significant interest in regulating the dental profession.
-
11th Cir.·
2026-10-14
CCIA has associational standing to challenge HB3 on behalf of its member social-media platforms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain under Younger v. Harris. HB3 implicates the First Amendment by disproportionately burdening platforms' protecte
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-01
The court held that Younger abstention requires dismissal of claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief when an ongoing state criminal proceeding implicates important state interests and offers an adequate opportunity for review.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-19
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state criminal proceedings, and a § 1983 claim is not the proper vehicle to challenge guilt or prosecution.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint must be dismissed because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading, seeks relief barred by Younger abstention, fails to state a claim under federal law, and names state agencies immune under the Eleventh Amen
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-02
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it lacked federal question jurisdiction, was subject to abstention doctrines, and claims were barred by judicial and litigation immunities.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-13
The court granted defendants' motion for a protective order and to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-09
The Court granted the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff's motions to compel.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-12
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various alleged constitutional violations.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-04-16
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the petition without prejudice and denying a certificate of appealability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-21
The court held that the plaintiff's challenge to his burglary conviction is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, and his challenge to his robbery conviction requires abstention under the Younger doctrine.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-29
The court held that it has subject matter and personal jurisdiction and that no abstention doctrine applies, thus the motion to remand should be denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-04
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards and was deficient in multiple respects, requiring an amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-07
The court held that while the ordinance provides sufficient notice of prohibited conduct, the enforcement standards in subsection 30-55(2)(a) are unconstitutionally vague.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-02
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims due to a lack of diversity and federal question jurisdiction, and potentially due to abstention doctrines.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-05
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is frivolous, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-11
A federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed state-court eviction case where the removal is based on the plaintiff's counterclaims or defenses, and abstention is appropriate if the case were treated as originally filed in federal court.
-
861 F. Supp. 1041·
N.D. Fla.·
2022-05-10
The court held that the plaintiff's withdrawal of his bar application did not moot the Younger abstention doctrine and that defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for damages claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-26
Peter Davis, a Bahamas national, sued the Broward County Sheriff and Department of Homeland Security alleging that an immigration hold placed on his jail roster violated his Fourth Amendment rights, caused false imprisonment, and denied him access to courts while he was detained
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-01
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner challenging unaffordable bail must demonstrate the trial court's ruling was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and that the state court complied with procedural due process by considering less restrictive al
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-06
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to insufficient factual allegations and naming improper defendants.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-03
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim, is an impermissible shotgun pleading, and certain claims are barred by Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-06-05
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions and could not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-29
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because abstention principles apply.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
The court held that judicial immunity bars the plaintiff's claims for retrospective declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against the defendant judge.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-06
A state court judge is immune from suit for damages and injunctive relief under § 1983 for actions taken in her judicial capacity, as the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law through appeal.
-
213 F.R.D. 166·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-05-09
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for supervision, finding one communication potentially abusive while another was not.