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

• Lamb Enters., Inc. v. Judge George N. Kiroff
  549 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 28×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court vacated the permanent injunction against state court judges and employees, and reversed the judgment against the private defendant.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union & Jane Koe v. Bozardt
  539 F.2d 340· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Younger v. Harris doctrine bars federal intervention in ongoing state disciplinary proceedings, even when a motion to remand is filed due to a private reprimand, as state remedies are not yet exhausted.
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
  825 F.2d 1475· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 27×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the state court judgment was not final for preclusion purposes under Alabama law and that the injunction was proper under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Gibson v. Jackson
  578 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 27×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case pending the outcome of the state habeas corpus proceedings.
• United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Muir
  792 F.2d 356· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 26×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that Pullman abstention is improper in this case, partly because the potential damage to USAA's business outweighs state interests, and partly because abstention should not be used to avoid ruling on federal preemption claims.
• Harris v. Pernsley
  755 F.2d 338· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that res judicata, the eleventh amendment, official immunity, and abstention doctrines did not bar the inmates' claims for damages and injunctive relief.
• RED Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance
  648 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 26×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that while most provisions of the Texas obscenity statute are constitutional, abstention is appropriate for three specific provisions pending state court interpretation to avoid premature constitutional adjudication.
• Martin v. Merola
  532 F.2d 191· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-05 ·cited 26×
  A prosecutor may be held liable under § 1983 for making public statements that are beyond the scope of official duties and known or should have been known to violate a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial.
• Goodrich v. Supreme Court OF the State OF S.D.
  511 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a federal court should not intervene in ongoing state disbarment proceedings absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable injury, and that issues previously decided by a state court are res judicata.
• Tang v. App. Div. OF the NEW York Supreme Court
  487 F.2d 138· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 26×·via Younger Abstention
• Literature, Inc. v. Quinn
  482 F.2d 372· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 26×
  A single district judge lacks jurisdiction to deny injunctive or declaratory relief or dismiss a complaint when a substantial constitutional question is raised and equitable relief is formally alleged, requiring a three-judge court.
• Tokyo Gwinnett, LLC v. Gwinnett Cnty.
  940 F.3d 1254· 11th Cir.· 2019-10-11 ·cited 25×
  Tokyo Valentino, an adult entertainment business, challenged Gwinnett County's business licensing and adult entertainment ordinances under federal law, first suing in 2015 and later amending its complaint after the County enacted replacement ordinances. The Eleventh Circuit held
• Ahrensfeld v. Stephens
  528 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the eminent domain proceedings, affirming the dismissal of the federal action.
• Salem INN, Inc. v. Frank
  501 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal courts should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other special circumstances, even if the federal suit was filed first.
• Bobby Watts, M.D. v. John H. Burkhart, M.D.
  854 F.2d 839· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the equal protection claim but was correct in dismissing the due process claim because state remedies were adequate.
• Carras v. Williams
  807 F.2d 1286· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from claims for injunctive relief and damages unrelated to the state court action, and also erred in abstaining from damage claims arising from the state court action because the state's interest in administering its judi
• Worldwide Church OF GOD v. McNAIR
  805 F.2d 888· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 24×·via Younger Abstention
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court's judgment, requiring review of that decision.
• Ky. W. Va. GAS Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
  791 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 24×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Burford and Younger doctrines because the plaintiffs' preemption claims presented federal questions inappropriate for abstention and the procedural posture did not warrant Younger abstention.
• Campbell v. United States Parole Comm'n & Joseph S. Petrovsky. Appeal of United States Parole Comm'n
  704 F.2d 106· 3d Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 24×·via Younger V. Harris
  The dissenting judge holds that the Parole Commission unlawfully punished the defendant for a murder charge that the state declined to prosecute, violating his constitutional rights and federalism principles.
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  673 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 24×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that while the appointment of a special master to supervise compliance with a court order may be an abuse of discretion, a retroactive reversal is meaningless due to time and funds expended.
• Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Twp.
  671 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 24×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, as the case did not present unsettled state law questions or important state policies threatened by federal adjudication.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• L. H. v. Jamieson
  643 F.2d 1351· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 24×
  The district court erred in dismissing the action under Younger abstention, and while Pullman abstention is appropriate, the case should be remanded to allow for state court determination of the state law claim.
• Johnson v. Kelly
  583 F.2d 1242· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine should not be extended to cases where the state is not a party to the pending state proceedings.
• Schachter v. Whalen
  581 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus affirmed the dismissal.
• Person v. The Ass'n OF the BAR OF the City OF NEW York
  554 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that New York Disciplinary Rule 7-109 C, which prohibits attorneys from paying expert witnesses on a contingent fee basis, has a rational basis and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process or equal protection clauses.
• Frankos v. LaVALLEE
  535 F.2d 1346· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prison inmate stated a claim for relief regarding denial of counsel at disciplinary proceedings, but not for conspiracy to prevent consultation with counsel for a murder prosecution.
• Puerto RICO Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Recio
  520 F.2d 1342· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case based on a perceived mandate from Younger v. Harris, rather than exercising its discretion.
• Goode v. Rizzo
  506 F.2d 542· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-01 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the injunctive relief granted by the district court but vacated and remanded the award of counsel fees for further proceedings due to lack of clear explanation.
• Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corp.
  478 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the company's labor camp, functioning as a company town, is subject to First Amendment restraints, requiring reasonable access for the public to communicate with workers, and that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights to disseminate informati
• Palaio v. Hinson McAULIFFE
  466 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 24×·via Younger V. Harris
  Federal courts should not intervene in state civil proceedings that are an integral part of the state's criminal law enforcement, absent special circumstances.
• Luckey v. Zell Miller
  929 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-23 ·cited 23×
  The law of the case doctrine does not preclude the district court from considering the abstention doctrine when the issue was not explicitly decided or implicitly resolved in prior appellate proceedings.
• Crawley v. Hamilton Cnty. Comm'rs
  744 F.2d 28· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that federal courts should not abstain from hearing a case under Younger or Colorado River doctrines when the state proceeding is not parallel or when federal law is dispositive.
• Hunt v. Roth
  648 F.2d 1148· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 23×·via Younger Abstention
  The court should not decide the constitutional question presented because the case is moot due to the defendant's conviction and the parties' stipulation does not create a justiciable controversy.
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Cnty. OF SAN Diego & J. C. O'Connor
  495 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a general threat of enforcement, without a history of prosecution or specific immediacy, is insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court also found that a party ca
• In re William M. Kunstler. In re Barry Nakell. In re Lewis Pitts v. Britt
  914 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed after a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), and that the attorneys violated Rule 11 by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law, and by filing the complaint for an improper purpose.
• Al Derrickson v. City OF Danville
  845 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 22×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that while a consent decree approving a voting rights settlement remains valid, the state is not precluded from prosecuting the officials who negotiated it.
• Curtis v. Thompson
  840 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying a preliminary injunction without addressing all five required factors, particularly given the constitutional nature of the claims.
• Fresh Int'l Corp. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
  805 F.2d 1353· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from hearing the case under the Younger v. Harris doctrine, requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of ongoing state proceedings.
• Razatos v. The Colo. Supreme Court
  746 F.2d 1429· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 22×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the due process claim and that the Colorado attorney disciplinary scheme does not violate due process, even when credibility is at issue, because the Supreme Court retains ultimate review power and discre
• Parkhurst v. State OF Wyo.
  641 F.2d 775· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims for release or injunctive relief are cognizable only in habeas corpus and require exhaustion of state remedies, but a claim for money damages under § 1983 may proceed if it does not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Marlin Brown v. McCORMICK
  608 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the appellants' attorney had notice of the default judgment hearing, the complete exclusion of the appellants from a hearing where testimony was received to set remedies may raise due process concerns, but the lawyer's inaction on appeal prevents voiding
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• Familias Unidas v. Dolph Briscoe
  544 F.2d 182· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 22×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that while the withdrawal of the state's request for information mooted the need for injunctive relief, the underlying controversy regarding the constitutionality of the statute's past application remained justiciable for declaratory judgment. The court also found
• Grandco Corp. v. Rochford
  536 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-08 ·cited 22×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that pending state proceedings against Grandco and Wabash Books barred federal relief under the Younger doctrine, but administrative proceedings against Festival Theatre did not. The ordinance was facially unconstitutional as applied to motion picture theaters.
• Mendez v. Hon. Louis B. Heller
  530 F.2d 457· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The court dismissed the case for lack of ripeness, finding that federal jurisdiction had not yet attached because the appellants had not filed a divorce complaint in state court.
• UTZ v. Honorable Maurice Cullinane
  520 F.2d 467· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the routine dissemination of arrest records to the FBI, even when supplemented with disposition notations, is statutorily prohibited by the 'Duncan Ordinance' when not for strictly law enforcement purposes.
• 414 Theater Corp. v. Murphy
  499 F.2d 1155· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-17 ·cited 22×
• Int'l Tape Mfrs. Ass'n v. Gerstein
  494 F.2d 25· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the case was not ripe for adjudication because the record did not demonstrate a justiciable controversy, and thus the trial court prematurely granted judgment.
• Jones v. Wade
  479 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-30 ·cited 22×
  The court granted a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the prior panel decision.