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

• Gwynedd Props., Inc. v. Lower Gwynedd Twp.
  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.
• Gomez v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  966 F.2d 463· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus was moot due to subsequent events, including the Supreme Court's ruling and the expiration of the temporary restraining order.
• SMA Life Assurance Co. v. Sanchez-Pica
  960 F.2d 274· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief to prevent a local administrative agency from proceeding, despite a prior federal default judgment.
• William D. Allen, D.D.S. v. La. State Bd. OF Dentistry
  948 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lift a previously imposed stay, even though the appellant had achieved partial success in state court, because the circumstances justifying abstention had not changed significantly.
• Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. The Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF Ohio
  926 F.2d 567· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-27 ·cited 2×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Fed. Express Corp. v. Tenn. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  925 F.2d 962· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the Younger abstention doctrine, affirming the dismissal of the case.
• In re the Application & Affidavit FOR A Search Warrant. The Wash. Post Co. v. Hughes
  923 F.2d 324· 4th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in reversing the magistrate's order to seal a portion of a search warrant affidavit, finding that the magistrate did not abuse his discretion.
• SUN Ref. & Mktg. Co. v. Brennan
  921 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from hearing cases where ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and offer an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims, even if those claims involve federal preemption.
• Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp. v. City OF W. Chicago
  914 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a municipal ordinance that on its face targets only health and safety hazards unrelated to radiation hazards, and that Kerr-McGee stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce its federal rights under the AEA
• Am. Fed'n OF State v. Tristano
  898 F.2d 1302· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 2×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Cinema Blue OF Charlotte v. Gilchrist
  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.
• Telco Commc'ns, Inc. v. Carbaugh
  885 F.2d 1225· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should have abstained from hearing the case, as it involved an ongoing state administrative proceeding implicating important state interests with an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges.
• Redner v. Citrus Cnty.
  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.
• Thanh Vong Hoai v. Sun Ref. & Mktg. Co., Inc.
  866 F.2d 1515· D.C. Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 2×
  A federal court's stay of a federal action pending resolution of state court proceedings is improper when neither the Younger/Pennzoil doctrine nor the Colorado River doctrine justifies abstention, as federal courts have an unflagging obligation to exercise jurisdiction.
• Planned Parenthood League OF Mass. v. Bellotti
  868 F.2d 459· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 2×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Clark Mershon v. Kyser
  852 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the allegations of bad-faith prosecution were insufficient to overcome the Younger abstention doctrine.
• Lewellen v. Raff
  851 F.2d 1108· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that its prior affirmance of a preliminary injunction against a state criminal trial was proper, even without a definitive finding on the likelihood of conviction, because a finding of retaliatory prosecution was sufficient for preliminary relief.
• Ballard v. Stanton
  833 F.2d 593· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal court should not enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding unless the defendant demonstrates great and immediate irreparable harm, which was not shown here.
• Grant v. Meyer
  828 F.2d 1446· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Colorado's statute prohibiting payment for the circulation of initiative or referendum petitions violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that paying circulators is a form of political speech essential for dissemin
• The Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Sachs
  802 F.2d 1527· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from hearing PEPCO's federal preemption claim under the Younger doctrine due to pending state grand jury proceedings.
• Bishop v. State BAR OF Tex.
  791 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 2×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the State Bar of Texas is not a 'person' under § 1983 and that its employees are protected by immunity, affirming the dismissal of Bishop's claims.
• Marcal Paper Mills, Inc. v. Ewing
  790 F.2d 195· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 2×
• Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd. v. R.Y. Empie
  778 F.2d 1447· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 2×
  Federal regulations governing federally chartered savings institutions preempt state laws that prohibit the use of the word 'bank' in advertising, as such state laws directly conflict with federal law under the Supremacy Clause.
• Savidge v. Jaylor Fincannon
  768 F.2d 639· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 2×
  Lawsuits filed by individuals who are members of a class in a pending injunctive decree action should initially be handled by the court administering that decree.
• DOE v. Donovan
  747 F.2d 42· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 2×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Promovision Int'l Films, Ltd. v. Trapani
  744 F.2d 1063· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the First Amendment claim after the plaintiff properly reserved federal issues under the England doctrine following Pullman abstention.
• Rhoades v. The Honorable Craig Penfold
  694 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction, did not err in refusing to abstain or apply res judicata, but did err in granting summary judgment and certifying a class action.
• Womens Servs. v. Douglas
  653 F.2d 355· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-15 ·cited 2×
  Abstention under Younger v. Harris was improper because the federal plaintiffs were not parties to the state criminal proceeding and their interests were not sufficiently intertwined to warrant interference with their federal claims.
• United Fed'n OF Teachers Welf. Fund v. Werner Kramarsky
  650 F.2d 1310· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Younger Abstention
  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.
• Dommer v. Crawford
  638 F.2d 1031· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The district court's order was an impermissible interference with state criminal law administration, as plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in state courts and failed to exhaust those remedies.
• WOE v. Neb. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  598 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a stay of execution of a preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.
• Benjamin H. Munson, M.D. v. Janklow
  563 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-21 ·cited 2×·via Younger V. Harris
• Dema v. State OF Ill.
  546 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court and properly dismissed the complaint based on abstention principles.
• United States ex rel. Clifford Morgan & Donald L. Allen v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  546 F.2d 218· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a representative habeas corpus action was properly maintained even if the legal issue had not been definitively adjudicated, and that the Stachulak decision requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act shoul
• Tatzel v. Hon. Morton J. Hanlon
  530 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 2×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a stay of state proceedings and dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies or demonstrate futility.
• Fontaine v. Walls
  515 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prisoner's suit for damages based on alleged physical mistreatment and improper confinement is a Section 1983 claim, not subject to the exhaustion requirement for habeas corpus actions.
• Marks v. Leis
  W.D. Pa.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 2×
• Fred and Dorothy Joiner v. City OF Dallas
  488 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an exception to the anti-injunction statute, granting federal courts jurisdiction to enjoin state proceedings when property rights are at issue. The court also found that federal courts should consider injunction claims under Younger
• Thompson v. Groshens
  475 F.2d 127· 3d Cir.· 1973-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal court should not entertain an injunction action to relitigate constitutional challenges to a state statute already rejected by state courts.
• Canal Theatres, Inc. v. Murphy
  473 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts must abstain from enjoining state administrative and judicial proceedings when a party can raise constitutional claims in state court.
• Hopson v. Asch
  457 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 2×·via Younger V. Harris
  Federal courts should not enjoin or grant declaratory relief for pending state court proceedings unless exceptional circumstances are present.
• Musick v. Jonsson
  449 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-27 ·cited 2×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the irreparable injury required for federal injunctive relief against the ordinance.
• Locks v. Laird
  441 F.2d 479· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-20 ·cited 2×
  Members of the military may not challenge the constitutionality of service regulations in federal civilian courts by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after court-martial proceedings have commenced.
• EVE Prods., Inc. v. Shannon
  439 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 2×·via Younger V. Harris
  Federal courts should not enjoin state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury.
• Black Knight, Inc. v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC
  150 F. Supp. 3d 228· M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that PennyMac did not waive its right to arbitrate its antitrust claims against BKI because PennyMac's right to arbitrate did not arise until BKI invoked the Master Agreement's venue provision, and PennyMac acted reasonably by waiting until that point to demand arb
• Dandar v. Church of Scientology Flag Serv. Org., Inc.
  732 F. Supp. 2d 310· M.D. Fla.· 2013-02-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply because the plaintiff's claims allege independent constitutional violations, not just review of state court decisions. However, the court found that Younger abstention applies because there are ongoing state proceedin
• Major League Baseball v. Butterworth
  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.
• Scheer v. City of Miami
  15 F. Supp. 2d 1338· S.D. Fla.· 1998-07-21 ·cited 1×
  Federal courts should not intervene in state election disputes involving fraud unless the entire process is fundamentally unfair, and equitable considerations and federalism principles weigh against such intervention.
• White's Place, Inc. v. Glover
  975 F. Supp. 1333· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-27 ·cited 1×
  White's Place, Inc., operator of an adult entertainment establishment called The Gold Club, sought a preliminary injunction against the City of Jacksonville and Sheriff Glover to prevent enforcement of the Jacksonville Adult Entertainment and Services Code, alleging the ordinance
• Int'l Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  838 F. Supp. 580· S.D. Fla.· 1993-10-29 ·cited 1×·via Younger Abstention
  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.