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

• Harllel B. Jones v. Shankland
  800 F.2d 77· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's civil rights claims were time-barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations and that county prosecutors were absolutely immune from suit.
• Crane v. Fauver
  762 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 12×
  The district court should have retained jurisdiction over the § 1983 action while staying it pending the outcome of related state proceedings, rather than dismissing it.
• United States v. Anderson Cnty.
  705 F.2d 184· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that abstention under Pullman and Younger doctrines was inappropriate because the interpretation of the contract and the constitutionality of the tax presented federal questions, and the relevant state tax statutes were unambiguous.
• Howell v. State BAR OF Tex.
  674 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Howell's civil rights action, as neither jurisdictional nor res judicata bars prevented its adjudication on the merits.
• COX v. Planning Dist. I Cmty. Mental Health & Mental Retardation Servs. Bd.
  669 F.2d 940· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that while abstention was proper due to unsettled state law, the district court should have stayed the action rather than dismissing it.
• Foley v. The Ala. State BAR
  648 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the state action exemption barred the antitrust claims, but that the First Amendment claims were improperly decided on summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues.
• Garden State BAR Ass'n & the N.J. Ass'n of Black Women Lawyers v. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm.
  643 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with state attorney disciplinary proceedings under Younger v. Harris, as these proceedings are judicial in nature and offer an adequate forum for constitutional claims.
• Arnold Bickham, M.D. v. Joyce C. Lashof, M.D.
  620 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that abstention was not properly exercised because the state proceedings did not afford an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise his constitutional claims, and the interests of the plaintiff and the state-proceeding entity were not sufficiently intertwine
• Leonard v. The City OF Columbus
  565 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-26 ·cited 12×·via Younger Abstention
• Leonard v. The City OF Columbus
  551 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-09 ·cited 12×
• United States v. State OF La.
  543 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a three-judge district court's denial of a motion to intervene, and such denial is appealable to the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court.
• United States ex rel. Agnes Scranton v. The State OF NEW York
  532 F.2d 292· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 12×·via Younger V. Harris
  A federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner who has not exhausted all available state remedies, even if the prisoner claims a speedy trial violation.
• Wallace v. Kern
  499 F.2d 1345· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 12×
  A federal district court cannot establish a uniform rule for speedy trial based on arbitrary time periods, as the Sixth Amendment requires an ad hoc balancing test on a case-by-case basis.
• Stewart v. Dameron
  448 F.2d 396· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendants regarding the good faith of the prosecution.
• Almodovar v. Ira Reiner
  832 F.2d 1138· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 11×·via Younger Abstention
  The district court properly abstained under the Pullman doctrine but erred in dismissing the case; jurisdiction should be retained pending state court resolution.
• Kitchens v. Bowen
  825 F.2d 1337· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the federal defendant was not responsible for the alleged constitutional deprivation because the AFDC program leaves procedural details to the states, and the state defendants were entitled to Younger abstention because ongoing state proceedings implicated imp
• Juluke v. Hodel
  811 F.2d 1553· D.C. Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 11×·via Younger V. Harris
• LEE v. Winston
  717 F.2d 888· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the involuntary surgical removal of a bullet from a suspect's body, under the circumstances presented, would violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. It also held that such a claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habea
• James P. Kartell, M.D. v. Blue Shield OF Mass., Inc.
  592 F.2d 1191· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 11×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that abstention was appropriate pending resolution of complex state law questions by Massachusetts courts, as these questions were critical to the federal antitrust claims and involved substantial public policy concerns.
• In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Shirley IVY v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co.
  996 F.2d 1425· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the removed cases under the All Writs Act to protect its prior judgment in the Agent Orange I class action. It also affirmed that plaintiffs manifesting injury after the settlement date were properly incl
• Evans v. Court OF Common Pleas
  959 F.2d 1227· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief before a state retrial when the prior conviction was reversed for trial error, as double jeopardy does not bar such a retrial. The court also found that the petitioner had adequately exhausted her federal due
• Paul E. Bettencourt, M.D. v. Bd. OF Registration IN Med. OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  904 F.2d 772· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 10×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that Younger abstention was appropriate, requiring dismissal of the federal action due to the pending state judicial review of the medical license revocation.
• Lafonda Fay Foster v. Kassulke
  898 F.2d 1144· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts must abstain from intervening in pending state criminal proceedings, even on appeal, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
• Standard Alaska Prod. Co. v. Schaible
  874 F.2d 624· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar the Producers from seeking relief in federal court, and the claim of judicial bias is not ripe for review until presented to the state courts.
• In re Sealed Case
  829 F.2d 50· D.C. Cir.· 1987-08-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Attorney General's delegation of authority to Independent Counsel Walsh was lawful, and that Walsh and his associates were properly vested with authority to issue the subpoena, regardless of the Ethics Act's constitutionality.
• Murray S. Jacobson v. Vill. OF Northbrook Mun. Corp.
  824 F.2d 567· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing cases where state court proceedings are ongoing, absent specific exceptions, to avoid interfering with state judicial processes.
• Collins v. Cnty. OF Kendall
  807 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of bad faith prosecution, thus the district court properly abstained under the Younger doctrine.
• Zalman v. Armstrong
  802 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris principles because a state criminal proceeding was pending when the federal action was filed, and no extraordinary circumstances justified federal intervention. The court vacated the district cou
• Hefner v. Alexander
  779 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal abstention was appropriate, the antitrust claim was barred by state immunity, and pendent jurisdiction over constitutional claims was unwarranted.
• Adultworld Bookstore dba Reliable Enters., Inc. v. The City OF Fresno
  758 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, as the plaintiff had not violated the ordinance before filing suit and the circumstances did not present a 'race to the courthouse' scenario. The court also found that the plaintiff had shown seri
• Burrus v. Turnbo
  743 F.2d 693· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-25 ·cited 10×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) mandates dismissal with prejudice if a receiving state returns a prisoner to the sending state before trial, regardless of the reason for the return or subsequent appellate reinstatement of the indictment.
• Lydon v. Justices OF the Boston Mun. Court
  698 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 10×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that a defendant's election of a two-tier trial system does not constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the first-tier trial.
• Spartacus, Inc. v. Borough OF McKEES Rocks
  694 F.2d 947· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Bd. OF Trs. OF Carpenters Pension Tr. Fund FOR N. Cal. v. Reyes
  688 F.2d 671· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the preemption issue was barred by res judicata and that attorney's fees could be awarded under ERISA to a non-employee ex-spouse. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the fee amount.
• Wxyz, Inc. v. Hand
  658 F.2d 420· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a Michigan statute mandating suppression orders for details of alleged sex offenses and the suppression order itself, issued without judicial inquiry into necessity, violate the First Amendment.
• Septum, Inc. v. Keller
  614 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that by cooperating with the prosecuting attorney, the defendant brought itself within the Younger abstention window, allowing for federal court intervention.
• United States v. State of Ohio
  614 F.2d 101· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that abstention by the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action was proper under both the Pullman and Younger abstention doctrines.
• Kenner v. Morris
  600 F.2d 22· 6th Cir.· 1979-03-27 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of a federal constitutional challenge to state alimony statutes, finding that while the statutes are unconstitutional based on Supreme Court precedent, the federal court should abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings.
• Dolph Briscoe v. Levi
  535 F.2d 1259· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-19 ·cited 10×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the district court had narrow jurisdiction to review whether the Director of the Census properly applied the Voting Rights Act, but not to review the computations themselves. The court affirmed the district court's decision that the Director's determinations w
• Glenn v. Reubin O'D. Askew
  513 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellee failed to exhaust his state court remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Anonymous J. and Anonymous R. v. The BAR Ass'n OF Erie Cnty. & John B. Walsh
  515 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not exempt from the Younger abstention doctrine.
• The Reverend Temperance E. Wright v. State
  495 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages under the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 2520, and that the claims should not have been dismissed without an opportunity to prove them. The court also noted that equitable relief cla
• Joseph v. Blair
  482 F.2d 575· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply when no state criminal or civil proceedings are pending against the plaintiffs. It also held that a prior Supreme Court dismissal for want of a substantial federal question does not preclude federal court consider
• Cmty. Action Grp. v. City OF Columbus
  473 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that federal courts should not intervene in pending state court proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.
• Kinney v. Harlow F. Lenon
  447 F.2d 596· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 10×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin state court proceedings, even for juveniles, due to principles of comity and federalism, and that a claim for a declaratory judgment is also subject to these equitable principles.
• Keene Corp. v. Judge J.E. Cass
  908 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court orders when the federal claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court's rulings, and that attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 cannot be awarded when a case is dismissed for lack
• Garden State BAR Ass'n & The N.J. Ass'n of Black Women Lawyers v. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm.
  651 F.2d 154· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 9×
  The case is moot because the New Jersey Supreme Court's action has resolved the issue on appeal, and neither party has a legally cognizable interest in the final determination.
• Livingston v. Garmire
  442 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 9×·via Younger V. Harris
  A federal court cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution unless the plaintiff proves great and immediate irreparable injury, and mere vagueness or overbreadth of a statute is insufficient without bad faith or harassment.
• Thompson v. Florida Bar
  526 F. Supp. 2d 1264· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-21 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that Younger/Middlesex abstention applies to the plaintiff's claims, requiring dismissal of the federal action.
• Lebbos v. Judges OF the Superior Court
  883 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that abstention under the Younger doctrine was appropriate for claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, but not for claims seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Betsey Lebbos's due process claims were allowed to proceed.