649 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 218 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-26
The court struck the plaintiff's initial filings and granted her three weeks to file an amended complaint that complies with court rules and federal procedure regarding minor's names, and addresses potential jurisdictional issues.
-
The court held that judicial immunity bars the plaintiff's claims for retrospective declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against the defendant judge.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2020-02-18
The court held that the plaintiff's challenge to a civil contempt order must be pursued in state court, and therefore, the Younger abstention doctrine applies.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-15
The court held that a federal court must abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings when the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies and no extraordinary circumstances exist.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-20
The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal jurisdiction over claims challenging state court judgments, and thus dismissed federal claims with prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-18
Federal courts should abstain from hearing pre-trial habeas corpus petitions when issues can be resolved in state court, absent special circumstances.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-24
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court foreclosure action under either the Rooker-Feldman or Younger abstention doctrines.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-26
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2019-05-30
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the case without prejudice.
-
849 F. Supp. 2d 1332·
S.D. Fla.·
2014-01-03
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to compel, based on his refusal to participate in a hearing.
-
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for supervision, finding one communication potentially abusive while another was not.
-
The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims under the Medicaid Act but does bar claims under the Adoption and Safe Families Act due to its detailed remedial scheme. The court also found that Younger abstention did not apply.
-
166 F. Supp. 2d 1358·
M.D. Fla.·
2001-09-17
Orange County enacted temporary and permanent ordinances restricting rave clubs' operating hours. When the nightclub operator was criminally charged with violating the ordinance, the federal district court invoked the Younger abstention doctrine and declined to hear the plaintiff
-
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5456·
S.D. Fla.·
2000-04-05
The court held that the newspaper publishers have standing and that neither the Rooker-Feldman doctrine nor Younger abstention bars their First Amendment claims in federal court.
-
17 F. Supp. 2d 1318·
S.D. Fla.·
1998-05-11
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the Eleventh Amendment and that abstention was appropriate under the Younger doctrine, denying the petition for a writ of mandamus and stay.
-
The court held that abstention under Pullman is inappropriate because the statute is facially challenged as violating the First Amendment, and there is no readily available limiting construction that would avoid this constitutional issue.
-
S.D. Fla.·
1993-05-28
The court held that Younger abstention doctrine requires dismissal of declaratory and injunctive relief claims and a stay of damages claims in a federal civil rights action when a state criminal prosecution is pending.
-
989 F.2d 359·
9th Cir.·
1993-03-30
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the federal suit under the Younger abstention doctrine because the state proceedings were ongoing, implicated important state interests, and provided an adequate opportunity to raise federal questio
-
988 F.2d 252·
1st Cir.·
1993-03-09
The court held that the section 1983 claims failed due to lack of state action and that the Fair Housing Act claims should not have been entertained by the federal district court due to the Anti-Injunction Act and Younger abstention. The federal district court improperly enjoined
-
979 F.2d 627·
8th Cir.·
1992-11-09
The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a third-party beneficiary contract claim, and abstention was inappropriate as the claim was not substantially related to pending state proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel discovery, granting summary judgment on civil rights claims, or abstaining from injunctive relief.
-
975 F.2d 1329·
7th Cir.·
1992-09-23
The court held that the plaintiff's claim that Wisconsin's WEOP program violated her religious freedom was not ripe for judicial review because she had not adequately presented her religious objections to state officials and had not demonstrated substantial hardship.
-
970 F.2d 82·
5th Cir.·
1992-09-01
The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the City acted in bad faith and with intent to harass, thus justifying federal intervention despite pending state proceedings, and that the City could be held liable as its officers acted pursuant to official poli
-
The court held that federal courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case that seeks to enjoin a state court's preliminary injunction, as it implicates important state interests in enforcing its judicial orders and is subject to review within the state system.
-
Federal courts are not bound by state procedural rules regarding the form of attack on a void state court judgment, and can grant relief based on federal statutes concerning contracts with Indians.
-
The court held that the appellant was precluded by his state court conviction from relitigating the issue of probable cause in his federal civil rights action.
-
967 F.2d 329·
9th Cir.·
1992-06-16
The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, as the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to litigate his federal constitutional claims in state court proceedings.
-
965 F.2d 90·
6th Cir.·
1992-05-28
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, affirming the judgments based on res judicata, prosecutorial immunity, and the lack of material fact disputes regarding constitutional violations.
-
966 F.2d 460·
9th Cir.·
1992-04-20
-
961 F.2d 852·
9th Cir.·
1992-04-14
The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding the claims non-justiciable due to mootness, immunity, Rooker-Feldman, Younger abstention, or failure to state a federal constitutional deprivation.
-
The court held that the appellant, a voter who intervened in the district court, lacked standing to appeal the district court's judgment because she did not demonstrate a concrete injury. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
-
938 F.2d 86·
7th Cir.·
1991-07-30
The district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from hearing the federal eavesdropping claim because the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issue in the ongoing state disciplinary proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that New York's amended hazardous waste facility siting law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court also found that Younger abstention was not warranted as there was no ongoing state proceeding when the fe
-
The court held that the district court correctly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine because the plaintiff's federal claims were intertwined with a pending state court proceeding involving important state interests.
-
884 F.2d 990·
7th Cir.·
1989-09-06
The appeal is dismissed as moot because subsequent legislative amendments to the challenged Act rendered the case moot, and the district court's judgment is vacated with directions to dismiss the complaint.
-
878 F.2d 1114·
8th Cir.·
1989-07-13
The court held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine, requiring abstention from hearing the federal constitutional challenge due to pending state forfeiture and criminal proceedings.
-
877 F.2d 6·
7th Cir.·
1989-06-09
The court held that the meaning of the ordinance is established by the Supreme Court's prior ruling, and plaintiffs' remaining claims were either not properly raised or must be pursued in state court.
-
876 F.2d 79·
10th Cir.·
1989-05-30
The court held that the judge was immune from damages, and equitable claims were properly dismissed under Younger abstention, but damage claims against other state officials should have been stayed, not dismissed.
-
871 F.2d 762·
8th Cir.·
1989-04-04
The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the case under the Younger doctrine because a state criminal proceeding was pending against the appellants when the federal action was considered.
-
The court held that the case is moot and should be dismissed.
-
835 F.2d 340·
D.C. Cir.·
1987-12-15
The court held that the Superior Court's forfeiture decree rendered the replevin claim moot and precluded relitigation of matters raised in that proceeding. The court also found the remaining claims against unknown officers too vague.
-
790 F.2d 390·
5th Cir.·
1986-05-19
The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with ongoing state attorney disciplinary proceedings absent bad faith.
-
The court held that the district court should have considered Connecticut's certification procedure before abstaining under the Pullman doctrine.
-
The court held that the parents failed to prove a retaliatory motive or other factual basis to justify enjoining the state prosecution, and the trial court's finding of no bad faith was not clearly erroneous.
-
752 F.2d 352·
8th Cir.·
1985-01-16
The court held that the district court properly denied the motion for federal injunctive relief based on the abstention doctrine.
-
749 F.2d 1124·
4th Cir.·
1984-12-05
Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state trial court proceedings or to grant injunctive relief against state judges, even when constitutional claims are raised.
-
746 F.2d 942·
2d Cir.·
1984-10-19
The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal action, holding that federal injunctive relief against pending state court criminal proceedings is not permissible under Younger v. Harris absent extraordinary circumstances.
-
732 F.2d 949·
D.C. Cir.·
1984-04-20
The court held that the district court should abstain from hearing the constitutional claims pending resolution by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
-
731 F.2d 680·
10th Cir.·
1984-04-06
The federal court erred in issuing a stay of state proceedings and in finding that the Tennessee court's determination of personal jurisdiction was not entitled to full faith and credit.