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

• Ofelia Ibarra and Jose Prundea v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  624 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the Pullman abstention doctrine, affirming the dismissal of the suit.
• Sydney Spiegel v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  600 F.2d 264· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal civil rights claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to file within two years of his termination, and his prior state court action did not toll the limitations period.
• Gardner v. Judge C. Luckey, Jr.
  500 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellants lacked standing to bring a class action challenging the Florida Public Defender system due to a failure to establish a case or controversy.
• Krahm v. Graham
  461 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court may enjoin pending state prosecutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if "special circumstances" demonstrate bad faith enforcement and irreparable injury, but a blanket requirement for prior adversary hearings before all future prosecutions is overbroad.
• Duncan v. Leander H. Perez, Jr.
  445 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 16×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the district judge accurately applied the criteria established in Younger v. Harris for granting federal injunctive relief against state prosecutions.
• Willhauck v. Halpin
  953 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissals and verdicts, finding no reversible error in the procedural history or the substantive rulings regarding the plaintiffs' civil rights claims.
• Schall v. Joyce
  885 F.2d 101· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 15×
  A district court's stay order, which effectively surrenders jurisdiction to a state court to litigate essential parts of a federal suit, is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Furthermore, abstention under Younger v. Harris is appropriate when state proceedings are jud
• Beltran v. State OF Cal., & United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO
  857 F.2d 542· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 15×
  The district court erred in refusing to abstain under Younger v. Harris, as the state proceedings implicated important state interests and provided an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.
• Allen v. La. State Bd. OF Dentistry
  835 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing claims seeking to enjoin pending state administrative proceedings, but not claims for monetary damages or challenges to unrelated state statutes.
• Hadley v. Werner
  753 F.2d 514· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 15×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that a claim challenging the validity of a conviction, even if framed as a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, must first be pursued through a habeas corpus petition to establish the illegality of confinement.
• Hydrostorage, Inc. v. N. Cal. Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Comm.
  891 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the administrative order was preempted by ERISA because the apprenticeship standards and fund constituted an employee welfare benefit plan.
• Richard Horn and all others similarly situated v. City OF Chicago & Datacom Sys. Corp.
  860 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the demand notices provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the opportunity to contest parking violations, reversing the district court's finding of a due process violation.
• The Univ. Club & the Union League Club v. The City OF NEW York
  842 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that abstention is appropriate under the Younger doctrine because there is an ongoing state administrative proceeding involving important state interests, and the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity for judicial review of its constitutional claims.
• Stanley N. Parker, D.M.D. v. Commonwealth OF Ky.
  818 F.2d 504· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 14×
  The statute is constitutional as it advances a substantial governmental interest in regulating professional standards for dentists.
• Sullivan v. The City OF Pittsburgh
  811 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal plaintiffs had standing, the district court did not err in refusing to abstain, the statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and the district court did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Act.
• Monaghan v. Deakins
  798 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Younger abstention did not require dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for damages and return of property, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Mann v. Jett
  781 F.2d 1448· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that abstention is appropriate in this case because the appellant can adequately litigate his claim in the ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• DeSPAIN v. Marlin Johnston
  731 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal district court should have abstained under the Younger doctrine because a state judicial proceeding was ongoing, implicated important state interests, and offered an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges.
• Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified
  525 F. Supp. 186· S.D. Fla.· 1981-10-02 ·cited 14×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the State of Florida's actions in threatening arrests and prosecution constituted bad faith harassment, justifying federal injunctive relief despite the Younger v. Harris doctrine, and that the court possessed admiralty jurisdiction over the salvage dispute.
• United States v. The Composite State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  656 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should abstain from enjoining the state proceedings due to a lack of clear irreparable injury.
• Giulini v. Blessing
  654 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate for declaratory and injunctive relief due to pending state criminal proceedings.
• Ziegler v. Ziegler
  632 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the federal constitutional claim pending a state court's interpretation of a new state statute, as such interpretation might render the federal claim moot.
• Hanna v. Toner
  630 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Burford abstention doctrine was inapplicable to a case alleging constitutional violations in a juvenile detention home, and federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims.
• McTEAGUE v. Sosnowski
  617 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) based on abstention principles, as the claim was neither frivolous nor malicious.
• Rosenthal v. Carr
  614 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-28 ·cited 14×·via Younger V. Harris
  Federal courts are barred by the abstention doctrine from enjoining pending state attorney disciplinary proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.
• Gabrilowitz v. Newman
  582 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that denying a student the right to consult with and be advised by counsel during a disciplinary hearing, when a related criminal case is pending, deprives the student of due process.
• Jackson v. Justices OF the Superior Court OF Mass.
  549 F.2d 215· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-14 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes that Breed v. Jones should be applied retroactively, compelling the conclusion that Massachusetts cannot commence adult criminal prosecutions against petitioners.
• Williams v. Mary Ann Williams (formerly Walker)
  532 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prisoner's complaint was properly dismissed because the judge was immune from damages, the non-judicial defendants had no duty to provide notice, and injunctive/declaratory relief was barred by comity principles.
• Hogge v. Johnson
  526 F.2d 833· 4th Cir.· 1975-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal for want of a substantial federal question is a binding decision on the merits for inferior federal courts. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the employee threshold
• Blouin v. Hon. Nanette Dembitz
  489 F.2d 488· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 14×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 action, holding that federal courts should abstain from deciding issues of state judicial administration that are best left to state courts.
• ROY v. Jones
  484 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-22 ·cited 14×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the case barred by res judicata, a ground different from the district court's abstention reasoning.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  446 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-25 ·cited 14×·via Younger Abstention
  The court vacated its original opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal interference with state prosecutions.
• Gordon v. Honorable Moon Landrieu
  442 F.2d 926· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-17 ·cited 14×
• Sable Commc'ns OF Cal., Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  890 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 13×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that a case or controversy existed, Pacific Bell acted under color of state law, and abstention was not required. However, the CPUC is immune from suit under section 1983, and the attorney fee award must be reallocated between defendants.
• Falls v. Town OF Dyer
  875 F.2d 146· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a plaintiff can state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for selective enforcement of a facially neutral ordinance if they can prove they were singled out for reasons other than legitimate governmental concerns.
• Bath Mem'l Hosp. v. Me. Health Care Fin. Comm'n
  853 F.2d 1007· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 13×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from deciding the hospitals' Medicare and legal costs claims, as these claims did not present issues of state law that would avoid federal questions, nor did they unduly interfere with Maine's regulatory system. However,
• Davis v. Lansing
  851 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable harm or prosecutorial bad faith.
• Lewellen v. Raff
  843 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the state criminal prosecution, but erred in denying absolute prosecutorial immunity for claims arising from electronic surveillance.
• Deaver v. Seymour
  822 F.2d 66· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 13×·via Younger V. Harris
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael Deaver's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent independent counsel from seeking an indictment.
• Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke
  708 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit enjoining state administrative proceedings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction due to a conflict between state and federal law, but the injunction was overly br
• Phillips v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
  657 F.2d 554· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' due process rights were not violated by PHEAA suing them in Dauphin County, as adequate state procedures existed for them to challenge venue or seek relief.
• Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick
  505 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte without notice or hearing, and that plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity to amend their complaint for injunctive relief and damages.
• Helfant v. Kugler
  500 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
• Est. OF Kyle Thomas Brennan v. Church OF Scientology Flag Serv. Org., Inc.
  645 F.3d 1267· 11th Cir.· 2011-07-07 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a federal district court's permanent injunction prohibiting a Florida state court from sanctioning an attorney for continuing to represent the Brennan Estate in a wrongful death action against the Church of Scientology. The district court had enjoine
• Greening v. Moran
  953 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that abstention under Younger was appropriate when the federal suit was filed, but claim preclusion applies now that state proceedings have concluded. Claims against the Trust Fund were dismissed for lack of standing. Sanctions were affirmed.
• Redner v. Citrus Cnty.
  919 F.2d 646· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from deciding the constitutionality of Ordinance 88-05 due to pending state criminal proceedings, but erred in abstaining from deciding the constitutionality of Ordinance 88-06.
• Harris v. Luckey
  918 F.2d 888· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 12×
  The district court correctly applied the law of the case doctrine to deny a motion to dismiss based on new grounds not previously raised or ruled upon.
• CSXT, Inc. v. Pitz
  883 F.2d 468· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
  Abstention is appropriate in preemption cases involving ongoing state administrative proceedings, even when federal law is claimed to preempt state action.
• Council FOR Periodical Distribs. Ass'ns v. Evans
  827 F.2d 1483· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the injunction against prior restraint and vacated the attorney's fees award, remanding for apportionment.
• Thomas v. Tex. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  807 F.2d 453· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts should not abstain from deciding federal questions when no state proceedings are pending, even if state remedies are available.