Younger V. Harris Abstention Doctrine

649 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 218 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In the Interest of D. B. and D. S.
  385 So. 2d 83· Fla.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 248×
  The Florida Supreme Court rejected a federal district court ruling requiring the state to provide counsel to all indigent participants in juvenile dependency proceedings. The Court held that a constitutional right to counsel exists only when proceedings may result in permanent lo
• Slavin v. Curry
  574 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-13 ·cited 160×
  The court held that a pro se complaint alleging a single, continuing conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should not be dismissed without a hearing, especially when immunity defenses are raised, and that claims under § 1985 and § 1986 require specific class-based animus not present
• 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.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  549 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-11 ·cited 113×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Hughes v. Attorney General OF Florida
  377 F.3d 1258· 11th Cir.· 2004-07-21 ·cited 104×
  Two airline pilots charged with operating an aircraft while intoxicated under Florida law sought federal habeas relief, claiming federal aviation law preempted the state criminal statutes. The district court granted relief, finding both express and field preemption. The Eleventh
• Johnson v. State
  32 F.4th 1092· 11th Cir.· 2022-04-28 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of postconviction relief, holding that a claim regarding the lack of written reasons for a guideline departure was barred by failure to raise it on direct appeal, but that a claim that the split sentence exceeded the guid
• Thompson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 93×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Gresham Park Cmty. Org. v. Howell
  652 F.2d 1227· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate, requiring dismissal of the federal suit seeking to enjoin state court proceedings, even though the state court's injunction was immediately enforceable and created state action.
• Singleton v. City OF NEW York
  632 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 90×·via Younger V. Harris
  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×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Landrigan v. City OF Warwick
  628 F.2d 736· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 85×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• United States v. Dickinson
  465 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 80×·via Younger V. Harris
  A blanket ban on reporting court proceedings, even to protect fair trial rights, transgresses First Amendment freedoms and cannot be constitutionally sustained.
• Ezell Littleton v. Peyton Berbling
  468 F.2d 389· 7th Cir.· 1972-10-06 ·cited 79×
  The dissenting judge holds that federal courts lack the power to issue mandatory injunctions regulating the discretion of state court judges and prosecutors, and that state officials are immune from damage claims for acts within their official duties.
• NEW Jersey Educ. Ass'n v. Burke
  579 F.2d 764· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, and that the state court judgment's res judicata effect on federal claims depends on whether those claims were actually litigated in state court.
• 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.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo pending appeal of a state court judgment, as federal jurisdiction was proper and abstention doctrines did not apply.
• Lewis v. Kugler
  446 F.2d 1343· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 70×·via Younger V. Harris
  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
• Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs
  670 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 69×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• 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.
• Nat'l Metalcrafters v. McNEIL
  784 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act is preempted by federal law (NLRA and Taft-Hartley Act Section 301) when applied to disputes over vacation benefits that require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Reuben Palmer v. City OF Chicago
  806 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 65×
  An order to pay interim attorney's fees is appealable under the collateral order doctrine if the party ordered to pay faces irreparable harm from immediate payment that cannot be recovered if the order is later reversed.
• Hobbs v. Mayor Ronnie Thompson
  448 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 65×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Kennecott Corp. & KC Dev. Inc. v. Smith
  637 F.2d 181· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying preliminary injunctive relief, finding that abstention doctrines did not preclude federal review and that Kennecott demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm due to the conflict between the New
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×·via Younger Abstention
  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×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Mann v. The City OF Tucson
  782 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 56×
  The court concurred in the result, finding substantial uncertainty in § 1983 jurisprudence regarding the significance of available state remedies.
• 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.
• Martori Bros. Distribs. v. Jyrl James-Massengale
  781 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board's (ALRB) 'make-whole' remedy, which includes fringe benefits, is not preempted by ERISA, nor does it violate the Contract Clause or Fifth Amendment.
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Soc'y of Separationists, Inc. v. White
  675 F.2d 680· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 53×·via Younger Abstention
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's dismissal, finding the plaintiffs lack standing and a ripe controversy.
• Jagnandan v. Giles
  538 F.2d 1166· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 52×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Keyes v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  521 F.2d 465· 10th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 50×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• 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×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley
  885 So. 2d 980· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-11-03 ·cited 49×·via Younger Abstention
  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×·via Younger Abstention
  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
• Clay L. Shaw v. Garrison
  467 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 48×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Tarter v. Hury
  646 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 47×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Portia Williams v. The RED Bank Bd. OF Educ.
  662 F.2d 1008· 3d Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 46×
  While abstention under Younger v. Harris is appropriate for state administrative proceedings concerning teacher tenure, the district court should have retained jurisdiction and stayed the federal action pending the outcome of the state proceedings, rather than dismissing it.
• Boraas v. The Vill. OF Belle Terre
  476 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 45×·via Younger V. Harris
  The dissenting judge argues that the Village's zoning ordinance is a rational means to achieve legitimate zoning objectives and should be upheld.
• Miofsky v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  703 F.2d 332· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 44×
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the alleged infringement of rights arises from state court proceedings, and res judicata does not bar claims summarily denied by state appellate courts.
• Playtime Theaters, Inc. v. The City OF Renton
  748 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 43×
  The City of Renton failed to demonstrate a substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppressing speech, and the ordinance was more restrictive than necessary. The denial of fees for a second removal was not clearly erroneous.
• Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  739 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 42×
  The court should have abstained from hearing the case due to important state interests implicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.
• Powers v. COE
  728 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 42×
  A guilty plea does not moot a § 1983 claim for constitutional violations occurring prior to the plea, and prosecutorial immunity does not bar claims arising from press leaks or illegal wiretaps.
• In re The Justices OF the Supreme Court OF Puerto RICO
  695 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 42×·via Younger Abstention
  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
• Cleaver v. Wilcox
  499 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while injunctive relief was inappropriate due to lack of irreparable harm and Younger considerations, declaratory relief regarding the right to appointed counsel in child dependency cases was proper.
• Wulp v. Corcoran
  454 F.2d 826· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-11 ·cited 42×
  A city ordinance requiring permits and badges for selling newspapers and other printed materials on the streets is unconstitutional on its face, violating First Amendment rights.