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

• The Bd. OF Elec. Light Comm'rs OF the City OF Burlington v. McCARREN
  725 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-30
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment, finding that the Federal Power Act preempts state regulation of hydroelectric projects licensed by FERC and that the state board was precluded from relitigating issues already decided.
• Pietzsch v. Mattox
  719 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from judgment on the constitutionality of the Texas statutes.
• Luecke v. Mercantile Bank OF Jonesboro
  720 F.2d 15· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·via Younger Abstention
  The court affirmed the district court's use of the abstention doctrine regarding estate disposition but reversed the calculation of pecuniary damages in the wrongful death claim.
• Palmer v. Schneider
  699 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings absent specific exceptions, and no such exceptions applied here.
• Anton J. Miller v. The Wash. State BAR Ass'n
  691 F.2d 430· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-19
  The court holds that Younger abstention is not appropriate because state disciplinary proceedings were completed and no adequate opportunity for state court review exists.
• Boyer v. Sgt. Herbert Riley
  675 F.2d 185· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-07
  The court held that the district court should not have dismissed the action but should have held it in abeyance pending completion of state proceedings.
• The Strode Publishers, Inc. v. Lou Holtz and Wally Hall
  665 F.2d 333· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·via Younger V. Harris
  The pendency of a state court action between the same parties is not a sufficient basis for a federal court to dismiss a properly filed federal action.
• Davis v. Bryant Muellar
  643 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-06
  The state court should not exercise jurisdiction over an Indian arrested in violation of a tribal extradition ordinance, as such action impedes tribal self-government and is preempted by federal law.
• Lewis v. Evelle J. Younger
  653 F.2d 1258· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-17
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the Attorney General's investigation based on a premature preemption ruling.
• Dolack v. Allenbrand
  548 F.2d 891· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·via Younger V. Harris
  Federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state criminal prosecutions absent 'special circumstances' due to principles of comity and respect for state functions.
• Murray Gold v. The State OF Conn.
  531 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-25
  The federal court affirmed the district court's refusal to intervene in a state murder trial, citing principles of comity and abstention.
• Horvath v. City OF Chicago
  510 F.2d 594· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-16
  The court held that federal courts should not interfere with state civil proceedings to determine the application of a municipal ordinance, even if the ordinance is arguably vague.
• Gwathmey v. Town OF E. Hampton
  512 F.2d 1318· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-20 ·via Younger Abstention
  The court affirmed the district court's refusal to enjoin an ongoing state criminal proceeding, applying Younger and Samuels.
• Yarish v. Nelson
  502 F.2d 943· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·via Younger Abstention
  The court denied the petition to enjoin the warden from enforcing a prison policy prohibiting press interviews with specific inmates.
• Cadena v. Perasso
  498 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-28
  A judge is immune from civil liability for acts committed in their judicial capacity, and injunctive relief is inappropriate when adequate legal remedies exist.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Harris
  490 F.2d 572· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-09
  The court held that the district court improvidently granted injunctions staying enforcement of Oklahoma's liquor laws against Amtrak and intervenors, and that the appeal in one case was moot.
• Greenmount Sales, Inc. v. Davila
  479 F.2d 591· 4th Cir.· 1973-05-23 ·via Younger V. Harris
  The First Amendment does not require a prior adversary judicial hearing before government authorities seize single copies of allegedly obscene publications for use as evidence in criminal prosecutions.
• Eames v. Sargent Pitcher, Jr.
  468 F.2d 905· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a cause of action for injunctive relief against state murder prosecutions.
• Carter v. Chief OF Police
  468 F.2d 900· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-17
  The district court correctly dismissed the petition because federal courts should not enjoin state criminal proceedings unless there is a clear threat of prosecution.
• People OF the State OF Cal. v. Tolefree
  458 F.2d 494· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-19
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a basis for removal of the state criminal prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
• Ozel Conley v. Dauer
  463 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-17
• State OF Ga. v. Loveless
  454 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-03
  The district court's judgment remanding state prosecutions to state court is affirmed.
• Manns v. The Honorable Lawrence L. Koontz
  451 F.2d 1344· 4th Cir.· 1971-11-30
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal courts should not enjoin state criminal proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine unless specific criteria for irreparable harm or patent unconstitutionality are met.
• Arvil Leslie and Thomas Carmon v. Honorable Yale Matzkin
  450 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-01
  The court held that federal intervention was not warranted to compel the state to provide free transcripts of probable cause hearings to indigent defendants.
• Shan Sayles and Alix Cooperman v. Graham
  449 F.2d 783· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-05
  Federal courts should not interfere with state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances, even if films were seized without a prior adversary hearing.
• Phillips v. Osborne
  444 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-13 ·via Younger V. Harris
  A federal court cannot enjoin a state court action to protect a prior federal decree when the prior decree did not actually litigate or decide the substantive issues now raised in state court.
• Freeman Coleman v. Hon. Leonard Yokum
  442 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-28
  The Court of Appeals vacated the single-judge district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint, finding federal intervention inappropriate while state prosecution is pending.