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

• Rivera v. The Honorable Marvin A. Freeman
  469 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding the constitutionality of state juvenile detention statutes when state courts have not definitively ruled on the issue and there is no showing of state court inadequacy, due to principles of comity and federalism.
• Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, Inc. v. LEE Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction
  448 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 22×
  The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the School Board's authority to condition teachers' return to prior status on a $100 payment, reserving federal constitutional issues.
• THE News-Journal Corp. v. Honorable S. James Foxman
  939 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 21×·via Younger Abstention
  The News-Journal Corporation challenged a state trial court's restrictive order prohibiting extrajudicial statements by trial participants in a sensational murder-for-hire case. The federal district court dismissed the action under Younger abstention, finding that the News-Journa
• Liedel v. The Juv. Court OF Madison Cnty.
  891 F.2d 1542· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 21×
  The federal district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as it sought to review final state court judgments and enjoin ongoing state proceedings.
• Walnut Props., Inc. v. City OF Whittier
  861 F.2d 1102· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied because it failed to provide reasonable alternative avenues of communication for adult businesses, but that the city officials involved were entitled to qualified immunity.
• Del. Valley Citizens' Council FOR Clean AIR v. Commonwealth OF PA.
  755 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 21×·via Younger Abstention
  A state court has no power to disturb or enjoin compliance with federal court decrees, whether final or preliminary, due to the supremacy clause.
• United Church OF THE Med. Ctr. v. Med. Ctr. Comm'n
  689 F.2d 693· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.
• J. P. v. DeSANTI
  653 F.2d 1080· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding claims regarding pre-adjudication use of juvenile social histories and abused its discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim concerning post-adjudication dissemination.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  444 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 21×·via Younger V. Harris
• Alleghany Corp. v. Haase
  896 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 20×
  State administrative agencies cannot concede immunity from federal law; they must comply with federal law and the Constitution without waiting for a judicial order.
• Luckey v. Harris
  896 F.2d 479· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 20×
• Earle A. Partington v. Gedan
  880 F.2d 116· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred that the Hawaii Supreme Court should be allowed to determine its own justices' impartiality, as prior rulings do not automatically constitute disqualifying bias under federal law.
• Polykoff v. Collins
  816 F.2d 1326· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 20×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that Arizona's interpretation of "prurient interest" in its obscenity statute, as reflected in the Bartanen jury instructions, does not unconstitutionally overreach protected speech, and that abstention doctrines were inapplicable.
• Umphlet v. Connick
  815 F.2d 1061· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Louisiana's 'B-girl' statute does not violate equal protection, due process, or First Amendment rights, and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  798 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 20×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining under Burford and Younger doctrines in a case involving federal preemption claims under the Federal Power Act concerning state regulation of retail utility rates.
• Baggett v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg.
  717 F.2d 521· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 20×
  Abstention under Younger or Burford is inappropriate when a state administrative proceeding is preempted by federal law, as the state tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
• Switlik v. Hardwicke Co., Inc.
  651 F.2d 852· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 20×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel if the constitutional issues were fully litigated in prior state court proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action.
• McCURRY v. Allen
  606 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 20×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar a § 1983 action for search and seizure claims when federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable, and that the district court should not have granted summary judgment without considering all claims.
• Flynt v. Leis
  574 F.2d 874· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the out-of-state lawyers' procedural due process rights were violated by their removal from the case without a hearing, and that federal injunctive relief was appropriate because they lacked an adequate state remedy.
• Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame
  567 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 20×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the City's restrictive bidding policy, requiring unionized printers, was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and thus violated equal protection principles.
• Miller v. Granados
  529 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on abstention and that the complaint sufficiently alleged a tie-in arrangement violating the Sherman Act.
• McCUNE v. Frank
  521 F.2d 1152· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court reached the constitutional issue prematurely and vacated its order, remanding for further proceedings to determine the applicability of res judicata.
• Wallace v. Kern
  520 F.2d 400· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's order mandating specific bail hearing procedures constituted an improper intrusion into the state judicial system, violating principles of comity and federalism.
• Jaroslav Sedivy v. Elliot L. Richardson
  485 F.2d 1115· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred with the result but expressed concern that the jurisdictional amount requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not met, suggesting this issue requires further consideration.
• Bowman v. Wilson
  672 F.2d 1145· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 19×
  A serviceman under court-martial lacks standing to challenge pending proceedings based on subsequent criminal activity subjecting him to another jurisdiction's authority. Habeas corpus relief is barred by the doctrines of exhaustion of military remedies and Younger abstention.
• Kolski v. Garland Watkins
  544 F.2d 762· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 19×
  Federal courts must abstain from granting habeas relief from a pending state criminal prosecution unless extraordinary circumstances demonstrate irreparable injury, bad faith, or harassment.
• In re Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union # 107. Appeal of Ronald & Frances Gajkowski
  888 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 18×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the appeal was moot because a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision reversed the prior judgment, rendering the appellate court unable to grant effective relief.
• Turner v. State OF Tenn.
  858 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a presumption of vindictiveness should not attach to the state's twenty-year plea bargain offer, as there was no realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.
• Williams v. Hepting
  844 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-18 ·cited 18×·via Younger Abstention
  Witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity for testimony given at pretrial hearings, and federal courts should stay, rather than dismiss, civil rights claims for damages that cannot be redressed in ongoing state proceedings.
• Brunken v. Carol Lance & the Ill. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  807 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris, and that the father's due process claim failed because the alleged deprivation was at most negligent, not intentional. Injunctive relief against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendmen
• Bishop v. State BAR OF Tex.
  736 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while Younger v. Harris generally bars federal interference with state disciplinary proceedings, an exception exists for allegations of bad faith prosecution, which can justify injunctive relief and damages.
• Fam. Div. Trial Lawyers OF the Superior COURT-D.C., Inc. v. Moultrie
  725 F.2d 695· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court correctly granted summary judgment, finding the constitutional claims without merit and the majority's ruling inappropriate.
• Sequoia Books, Inc. v. McDONALD
  725 F.2d 1091· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrant's description of materials was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, and abstention was not required.
• Ada-Cascade Watch Co., Inc. v. Cascade Res. Recovery, Inc.
  720 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 18×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that plaintiffs' failure to provide the requisite sixty-day notice before commencing suit under the RCRA citizen suit provision mandates dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54 v. Danziger
  709 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  640 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal habeas corpus relief is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing state child custody disputes, and that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
• Coley v. Clinton
  635 F.2d 1364· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-16 ·cited 18×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court correctly abstained from ruling on commitment and release procedures due to unclear state law and affirmed the abstention regarding confinement conditions. It vacated rulings on confinement constitutionality and class certification, remandin
• Worldwide Church OF GOD, Inc. v. The State OF Cal.
  623 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly invoked Younger abstention to deny a preliminary injunction, but erred in denying the Church leave to amend its complaint.
• United States v. Kuehn
  562 F.2d 427· 7th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 18×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the United States Attorney lacked standing to seek an injunction against a state prosecution based on a federal grant of immunity, and that collateral estoppel barred the witness's intervention claim after the state court denied his motion to dismiss.
• Becker v. Thompson
  463 F.2d 1338· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 18×·via Younger V. Harris
• Hammond v. Brown
  450 F.2d 480· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that appellants failed to demonstrate bad faith prosecution or irreparable harm, thus equitable relief was inappropriate, and affirmed the district court's decision regarding expungement of the grand jury report.
• Tex. Emp'rs' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson
  820 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 17×·via Younger Abstention
  The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) preempts state law claims for bad faith withholding of benefits, but the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings based on preemption alone.
• Brown v. O'Brien
  469 F.2d 563· D.C. Cir.· 1972-07-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Credentials Committee's apportionment of delegates was within its competence and did not violate due process, even if it operated retroactively or disregarded state statutes.
• Cooley v. Endictor
  458 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 17×·via Younger V. Harris
• Winston v. Child. & Youth Servs. OF Del. Cnty.
  948 F.2d 1380· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief regarding visitation policies was not moot, and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act's "reasonable efforts" clause creates enforceable rights, though a specific minimum visitation period was not establish
• Stephen Rindley, D.D.S. v. Gallagher
  929 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the lawsuit based on Pullman and Burford abstention doctrines, as there were no unsettled questions of state law that would avoid the federal constitutional issues, nor would federal review disrupt state regulatory effort
• Suburban Trails, Inc. v. NEW Jersey Transit Corp.
  800 F.2d 361· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 16×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the preemption and antitrust issues were not ripe for review because the state agency's action was not final and was subject to modification by a federal agency. The due process claim regarding future subsidies was also not ripe, but a factual development was
• Traughber v. Beauchane
  760 F.2d 673· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 16×
  Federal courts should not abstain from hearing a § 1983 claim challenging state attachment procedures when state remedies are inadequate or uncertain.
• Lewis v. Blackburn
  734 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, finding that the employee's complaints were based on personal self-interest rather than matters of public concern, and thus not protected by the First Amendment.
• Barnette v. Honorable James H. Evans
  673 F.2d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 16×
  A bankruptcy court cannot enjoin a state criminal prosecution for theft by deception, even if a conviction would mandate restitution of a debt that might be dischargeable in bankruptcy.