Younger V. Harris

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

• United States v. City OF Chicago
  549 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-11 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the withholding of federal revenue sharing funds from the City of Chicago was an improper and improvident exercise of equitable discretion.
• Guerro v. Mulhearn
  498 F.2d 1249· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 109×
  A federal court must stay its hand in a section 1983 damage action if disposition would involve ruling on the legality of a state conviction during pending state proceedings, but not every related action requires exhaustion.
• Singleton v. City OF NEW York
  632 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 90×
  A dismissal of criminal charges after an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal constitutes a favorable termination for purposes of a federal civil rights claim, and all claims arising from a single transaction should not be barred by state statutes of limitation.
• Wilson v. Thompson
  593 F.2d 1375· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-01 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the state had no substantive interest in renewed prosecution was not clearly erroneous, and that the reactivation of prosecutions solely in response to a civil suit was tantamount to a finding of bad faith.
• United States v. Dickinson
  465 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 80×
  A blanket ban on reporting court proceedings, even to protect fair trial rights, transgresses First Amendment freedoms and cannot be constitutionally sustained.
• Mrs. Christine Keyes v. Lauga
  635 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit rebuttal witnesses and that the jury instructions and interrogatories were sufficient. However, the damages awarded were excessive.
• Lewis v. Kugler
  446 F.2d 1343· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 70×
  The court held that federal courts should not abstain from hearing federal constitutional claims under the Civil Rights Act, but may dismiss claims seeking injunctions or declaratory relief against pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith or harassment. I
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• Hobbs v. Mayor Ronnie Thompson
  448 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 65×
  The court held that recent Supreme Court decisions on federal intervention do not preclude federal consideration of First Amendment claims against municipal ordinances, especially when the challenge is to employment conditions and not a pending criminal prosecution.
• 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.
• Jagnandan v. Giles
  538 F.2d 1166· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 52×
  Absent Congressional authorization, the Fourteenth Amendment does not, of its own force, abrogate the Eleventh Amendment's bar against retroactive monetary recovery from a state treasury, even for Fourteenth Amendment violations.
• Moore v. DeYOUNG
  515 F.2d 437· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 50×
  The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus and enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies on the merits of his speedy trial claim and did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify
• Cortright v. Resor
  447 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while courts must be scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate military matters, the exercise of First Amendment rights by service members is not exclusively an Army matter and may warrant judicial intervention.
• Clay L. Shaw v. Garrison
  467 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 48×
  A finding of bad faith or harassment in a state criminal prosecution is equivalent to showing irreparable injury, thus satisfying the 'special circumstances' requirement for federal courts to enjoin such proceedings under Younger v. Harris.
• Boraas v. The Vill. OF Belle Terre
  476 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Village's zoning ordinance is a rational means to achieve legitimate zoning objectives and should be upheld.
• Becker v. Thompson
  459 F.2d 919· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-03 ·cited 41×
  The concurring opinion argues that the majority's broad interpretation of Younger v. Harris is unnecessary and incorrect given the facts, and that federal intervention is not justified without a pending state prosecution or allegations of bad faith harassment.
• Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  498 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge holds that the district court's order, which granted judgment on one claim and stayed another, was a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Sammie Felder, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  693 F.2d 549· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 36×
  A state sovereign, through authorized representatives, can waive the habeas exhaustion requirement, as comity serves the state's sovereign interest.
• Thoms v. Heffernan
  473 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge believes the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the three-judge district court failed to properly address injunctive relief, and thus the case should be remanded.
• Pugh v. Rainwater
  483 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires arrestees held for trial upon informations filed by the state attorney to be afforded preliminary hearings before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay, and that Florida's practice of allowing the state attorney's certi
• Duke v. The State OF Tex.
  477 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 35×
  Federal injunctive relief against state judicial proceedings is not prohibited where state procedures are inadequate to protect federal rights and prevent irreparable harm.
• Concerned Citizens OF Vicksburg & Rev. Eddie L. McBride v. Murry Sills
  567 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the termination of state prosecutions during appeal moots the Younger abstention issue, requiring remand for determination of federal jurisdiction.
• Plano v. Baker
  504 F.2d 595· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the state administrative remedy was inadequate because it lacked procedures for resolving factual disputes, did not address constitutional issues within judicial expertise, and could not grant the requested damages.
• United States v. Marce Bell
  524 F.2d 202· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-06 ·cited 33×
  A felon's possession of a firearm manufactured out-of-state and purchased out-of-state, which has come to rest within the state, does not satisfy the "in commerce or affecting commerce" requirement of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) for a possession conviction.
• Louisville Area Inter-Faith Comm. FOR United Farm Workers v. Nottingham Liquors, Ltd.
  542 F.2d 652· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 32×
• Simpson Sartin, Jr. v. The Comm'r OF Pub. Safety OF the State OF Minn.
  535 F.2d 430· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the dismissal of the false arrest claim was improper because the defendant failed to plead affirmative defenses and exhaustion of state remedies is not required for a § 1983 action, while affirming dismissal of the due process and malicious prosecution claims.
• Fitzgerald v. Peek
  636 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-14 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a showing of bad faith prosecution, motivated by retaliation or harassment, justifies federal interference in pending state court criminal proceedings.
• Fain v. Duff
  488 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 31×
  The court's denial of rehearing en banc is dissented from, arguing the majority opinion improperly uses habeas corpus to prelitigate constitutional defenses in state criminal prosecutions.
• Cousins v. Wigoda
  463 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that vacating a preliminary injunction against a state court action seeking to suppress First Amendment rights was an abuse of discretion.
• People OF the State OF Ill. ex rel. John A. Barra v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.
  704 F.2d 935· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the State's Attorney's request for a declaratory judgment constituted an advisory opinion, not an actual case or controversy under Article III.
• Lewis v. Hyland
  554 F.2d 93· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-25 ·cited 30×
  Federal injunctive relief against state police misconduct is barred by Rizzo v. Goode when plaintiffs fail to prove a causal link between official policy and constitutional violations, and damages cannot be awarded when not contemplated by the parties throughout the litigation.
• Lamb Enters., Inc. v. Judge George N. Kiroff
  549 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court vacated the permanent injunction against state court judges and employees, and reversed the judgment against the private defendant.
• Campbell v. United States Parole Comm'n & Joseph S. Petrovsky. Appeal of United States Parole Comm'n
  704 F.2d 106· 3d Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge holds that the Parole Commission unlawfully punished the defendant for a murder charge that the state declined to prosecute, violating his constitutional rights and federalism principles.
• Schachter v. Whalen
  581 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus affirmed the dismissal.
• Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corp.
  478 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the company's labor camp, functioning as a company town, is subject to First Amendment restraints, requiring reasonable access for the public to communicate with workers, and that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights to disseminate informati
• Palaio v. Hinson McAULIFFE
  466 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 24×
  Federal courts should not intervene in state civil proceedings that are an integral part of the state's criminal law enforcement, absent special circumstances.
• Luckey v. Zell Miller
  929 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-23 ·cited 23×
  The law of the case doctrine does not preclude the district court from considering the abstention doctrine when the issue was not explicitly decided or implicitly resolved in prior appellate proceedings.
• In re William M. Kunstler. In re Barry Nakell. In re Lewis Pitts v. Britt
  914 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed after a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), and that the attorneys violated Rule 11 by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law, and by filing the complaint for an improper purpose.
• Curtis v. Thompson
  840 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying a preliminary injunction without addressing all five required factors, particularly given the constitutional nature of the claims.
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• Familias Unidas v. Dolph Briscoe
  544 F.2d 182· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the withdrawal of the state's request for information mooted the need for injunctive relief, the underlying controversy regarding the constitutionality of the statute's past application remained justiciable for declaratory judgment. The court also found
• Grandco Corp. v. Rochford
  536 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that pending state proceedings against Grandco and Wabash Books barred federal relief under the Younger doctrine, but administrative proceedings against Festival Theatre did not. The ordinance was facially unconstitutional as applied to motion picture theaters.
• 414 Theater Corp. v. Murphy
  499 F.2d 1155· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-17 ·cited 22×
• Int'l Tape Mfrs. Ass'n v. Gerstein
  494 F.2d 25· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the case was not ripe for adjudication because the record did not demonstrate a justiciable controversy, and thus the trial court prematurely granted judgment.
• Jones v. Wade
  479 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-30 ·cited 22×
  The court granted a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the prior panel decision.
• Rivera v. The Honorable Marvin A. Freeman
  469 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding the constitutionality of state juvenile detention statutes when state courts have not definitively ruled on the issue and there is no showing of state court inadequacy, due to principles of comity and federalism.
• Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, Inc. v. LEE Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction
  448 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 22×
  The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the School Board's authority to condition teachers' return to prior status on a $100 payment, reserving federal constitutional issues.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  444 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 21×
• Alleghany Corp. v. Haase
  896 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 20×
  State administrative agencies cannot concede immunity from federal law; they must comply with federal law and the Constitution without waiting for a judicial order.
• Switlik v. Hardwicke Co., Inc.
  651 F.2d 852· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel if the constitutional issues were fully litigated in prior state court proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action.