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

• Morial v. Judiciary Comm'n OF the State OF La.
  565 F.2d 295· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the classifications made by the Louisiana statute and Canon, which treat judges differently when running for non-judicial office compared to other office holders, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• 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.
• Waldron v. McATEE
  723 F.2d 1348· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that abstention is appropriate in this case to allow Indiana state courts to interpret the Indianapolis loitering ordinance, thereby potentially avoiding or altering the federal constitutional issue.
• Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  498 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 39×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. Gen. Elec. Co. & S. Cal. Edison Co.
  683 F.2d 206· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Illinois Spent Fuel Act violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and that federal jurisdiction was proper. The court also found that removal of the state court action was improper.
• Meltzer v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Orange Cnty.
  548 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the school board's guidelines permitting the deposit of religious literature for student pickup were unconstitutional.
• Lynch v. Snepp
  472 F.2d 769· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 38×
  A federal court should not grant a preliminary injunction to restrain a state civil proceeding unless the federal plaintiff demonstrates great and immediate irreparable injury that cannot be remedied by the state court.
• Ipcia M. Kercado-Melendez v. Awilda Aponte-Roque
  829 F.2d 255· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the plaintiff was in the midst of administrative proceedings when she filed her federal suit, and thus should have exhausted state remedies before proceeding in federal court.
• 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×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Bethune Plaza, Inc. v. Lumpkin
  863 F.2d 525· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a trade association's mere concern with the stare decisis effect of a district court opinion is insufficient to justify intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
• Tovar v. Billmeyer
  609 F.2d 1291· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 35×
  The district court erred in dismissing the federal action based on abstention doctrine, as appellants did not freely and without reservation submit their federal claims for resolution in state court.
• 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.
• NEW Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery OF THE Bible Presbyterian Church v. NEW Jersey State Bd. OF Higher Educ.
  654 F.2d 868· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The majority's rule allowing federal plaintiffs, not parties to a state proceeding, to interfere with that proceeding is unprecedented and contrary to established precedent.
• Parker v. Turner
  626 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 34×
• Concerned Citizens OF Vicksburg & Rev. Eddie L. McBride v. Murry Sills
  567 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 34×·via Younger V. Harris
  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×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States & Comm'r of Customs of the United States Customs Serv.
  849 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 33×
  A suit is frivolous and does not invoke federal jurisdiction if its constitutional claims are patently without merit, even if the defendant fails to raise the issue.
• W.C.M. Window Co., Inc. v. Bernardi
  730 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Illinois Preference to Citizens on Public Works Projects Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it acts as a tariff and the state is acting as a regulator, not a market participant, when the law is applied to local government projects. The court
• The Bd. OF Educ. OF Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. NO. 365U v. Bosworth
  713 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 33×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that abstention was proper due to the progress of parallel state proceedings which had rendered much of the federal complaint moot, and modified the dismissal to a stay.
• Etta Jane Brown v. Liberty Loan Corp. OF Duval
  539 F.2d 1355· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-06 ·cited 33×
  Due process does not require notice and an opportunity for a hearing on entitlement to an exemption before postjudgment garnishment of wages under Florida law.
• United States v. Marce Bell
  524 F.2d 202· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-06 ·cited 33×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Barr v. Abrams
  810 F.2d 358· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 32×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil rights liability for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, unless they proceed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction; otherwise, qualified immunity applies. Investigators are protected by qua
• Malachowski v. City OF Keene
  787 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief related to pending state juvenile delinquency proceedings and that various appellees were immune from damages claims or failed to state a claim under § 1983.
• Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance
  559 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 32×
• Louisville Area Inter-Faith Comm. FOR United Farm Workers v. Nottingham Liquors, Ltd.
  542 F.2d 652· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 32×·via Younger V. Harris
• 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×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Timmerman v. The Honorable Franchot A. Brown
  528 F.2d 811· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 32×
  Judicial and quasi-judicial officers are immune from suits for money damages but not for equitable or declaratory relief. The Younger v. Harris doctrine does not bar federal equitable relief when plaintiffs allege bad faith or harassment by state officials.
• Anonymous v. The Ass'n OF THE BAR OF the City OF NEW York & John G. Bonomi
  515 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine applies to state attorney disciplinary proceedings, barring federal injunctive and declaratory relief.
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• Fitzgerald v. Peek
  636 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-14 ·cited 31×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that a showing of bad faith prosecution, motivated by retaliation or harassment, justifies federal interference in pending state court criminal proceedings.
• Let's Help Florida v. McCRARY
  621 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 31×·via Younger Abstention
  Florida statutes restricting the size of contributions to a single political committee in a referendum election violate the First Amendment rights of individuals who wish to contribute more than the statutory maximum.
• Fain v. Duff
  488 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 31×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Leonard v. The Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy
  61 F.4th 902· 11th Cir.· 2023-03-02 ·cited 30×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to abstain under Younger v. Harris, finding that the state administrative proceeding provided an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise her federal PREP Act immunity claims.
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF N.C.
  713 F.2d 1024· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 30×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Burford doctrine, affirming the dismissal of the action. Federal courts should not intervene in complex state regulatory schemes involving important state policy when adequate state c
• 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×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• Midkiff v. TOM
  702 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 30×·via Younger Abstention
  The Hawaii Land Reform Act's eminent domain provisions are unconstitutional as they authorize the taking of private property for a predominantly private use, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Evans v. City OF Chicago
  689 F.2d 1286· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 30×·via Younger Abstention
• Heimbach v. Vill. OF Lyons (Wayne Cnty.
  597 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a village is a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following Monell, and that while a justice has absolute immunity for damages, other officials have only qualified immunity, making dismissal premature if bad faith is alleged.
• Lewis v. Hyland
  554 F.2d 93· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-25 ·cited 30×·via Younger V. Harris
  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.
• J.B. Smith v. Hightower
  693 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to consider the strength of the evidence of the Sheriff's guilt when determining if the prosecution was in good faith, and that the finding of retaliation was clearly erroneous.
• Palmieri v. The State OF NEW York
  779 F.2d 861· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that modifying judicial sealing orders to allow state access to settlement information was error absent an express finding of improvidence or extraordinary circumstances/compelling need by the state.
• Prof'l Plan Exam'rs OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Lefante
  750 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 28×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred by extending restraints without proper findings and by improperly abstaining from deciding federal constitutional and antitrust claims.
• Champion Int'l Corp. v. Margery H. Brown
  731 F.2d 1406· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by abstaining under the Younger doctrine because Montana failed to demonstrate a significant state interest implicated by the federal injunction, as ERISA preempted the state's age discrimination law as applied to the p
• Nat'l City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp.
  687 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar an injunction against state court proceedings when federal relief is sought but not yet granted.
• Kaylor v. Fields
  661 F.2d 1177· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil-rights action, holding that most claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or were subject to abstention doctrines, and the First Amendment claim lacked sufficient factual specificity.
• Eusebia Fernandez v. Honorable Jose Trias Monge
  586 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine did not bar the federal action because the plaintiff lacked an adequate remedy in the Commonwealth courts for his pretrial detention claim, and the denial of certiorari was not a decision on the merits.