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

• Ford Motor Co. & Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ins. Comm'r OF the Commonwealth OF Pa. Appeal of Pa. Ass'n OF Indep. Ins. Agents
  874 F.2d 926· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that Pennsylvania's statute prohibiting affiliations between insurance companies and savings and loan institutions is preempted by federal law when applied to the acquisition of failing thrifts, but not when applied to other affiliations. The court also affirmed th
• Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Md., Inc. v. Weiner
  868 F.2d 1550· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because BCBS-Maryland's claims required reviewing the state court's judgment, and thus the denial of the preliminary injunction and abstention are affirmed, but the case is remanded to dismiss
• Litteral v. Bach
  869 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal abstention under the Younger doctrine was not justified because the pending state litigation did not involve a vital state interest, and monetary claims could not be addressed in state proceedings.
• Davis v. Hon. Thomas C. Crush
  862 F.2d 84· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the plaintiffs' civil rights complaint did not necessarily reflect a lack of reasonable inquiry into the facts or law.
• Royal Feaster v. Miksch
  846 F.2d 21· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 8×
  When a federal damages action requires resolving issues that will determine the outcome of pending state criminal proceedings, federal courts must abstain under Younger v. Harris.
• Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp. v. Hartigan
  816 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly refused to enjoin the state court proceedings because the state was not bound by the prior federal decision and the Anti-Injunction Act did not mandate an injunction.
• Darrel Ray Leonard and Johnny A. Casselbury v. L.T. Hammond, Jr.
  804 F.2d 838· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not first exhausted state remedies, even if the petitioner has been released from custody.
• Suggs v. Hon. Anthony M. Brannon
  804 F.2d 274· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while abstention under Younger v. Harris was proper for injunctive relief due to pending state prosecutions, it did not require dismissal of the § 1983 claims for monetary damages.
• Dist. Props. Assocs. v. The Dist. OF Columbia
  743 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  The District Court erred in dismissing the landlords' claims based on exclusive jurisdiction and the principle of comity (Younger abstention).
• Grant v. Meyer
  741 F.2d 1210· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 8×
  A state statute prohibiting payment of initiative petition circulators does not violate the First Amendment because it restricts only generalized support for a political thought, not personal speech, and serves a compelling state interest in protecting the integrity of the initia
• United Books, Inc. v. Conte
  739 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from enjoining or issuing declaratory judgments regarding state obscenity prosecutions when a state criminal action is pending, absent extraordinary circumstances like bad faith or harassment.
• Miner v. Brackney
  719 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-28 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claims because Miner's defamation claim is not actionable under § 1983 and Simmons's claim improperly sought federal intervention in a pending state court conviction.
• Coruzzi v. State OF NEW Jersey
  705 F.2d 688· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing a civil rights action challenging a state judicial proceeding when the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state forum.
• In re Davis v. Sheldon
  691 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  A federal court should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions impacting bankruptcy proceedings when the state has a legitimate interest and the defendants have not demonstrated bad faith or irreparable harm.
• Ins. Fed'n OF Pa., Inc. v. Supreme Court OF Pa.
  669 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The dismissal of the insurers' action challenging Rule 238 on federal constitutional grounds is affirmed, as the claims lack legal merit.
• Cassidy v. Va. Carolina Veneer Corp.
  652 F.2d 380· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed as premature because the district court's order regarding attorneys' fees was not a final judgment.
• Cent. Ave. News, Inc. v. The City OF Minot
  651 F.2d 565· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine, dismissing the federal complaint without prejudice because the appellant could raise its constitutional claims in the pending state court enforcement proceeding.
• Herz v. Degnan
  648 F.2d 201· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Attorney General could not revoke or interfere with a psychologist's license except through statutory procedures, as the license constituted a constitutionally protected property interest.
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Soc'y of Separationists, Inc. v. Hill
  641 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that Pullman abstention was inappropriate for claims concerning the exclusion of atheists from holding judicial office in Texas, and that O'Hair had no adequate remedy at law in Texas courts.
• Leigh v. McGUIRE
  613 F.2d 380· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  The statute of limitations for a § 1983 action should be tolled during the pendency of intertwined state criminal and Article 78 proceedings when federal claims were necessarily raised in those state actions.
• Victoriano Rodriguez Diaz v. Stathis
  576 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court affirmed the dismissal of claims by plaintiffs involved in pending state criminal proceedings and claims by a plaintiff in a state civil suit, but directed the dismissal of the civil suit plaintiff's claims to be without prejudice.
• Munson v. Gilliam
  543 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and federal intervention in state criminal proceedings was unwarran
• Foster v. Zeeko
  540 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 8×
• Littleton v. Honorable Arthur O. Fisher and Honorable Harry E. Groves
  530 F.2d 691· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 8×·via Younger Abstention
  State court judges and referees are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in their judicial capacity.
• Rhodes v. City OF Chicago in Tr. For the USE OF Schs.
  516 F.2d 1373· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act does not create private rights of action, and the state court provided an adequate forum for the plaintiffs' claims.
• Moye v. The City OF Raleigh
  503 F.2d 631· 4th Cir.· 1974-10-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions, denying injunctive and declaratory relief, and dismissing damages claims without prejudice.
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't, Inc. v. Nassau Cnty.
  488 F.2d 1353· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm, given the unresolved state law questions regarding the plaintiff orga
• Morgan v. Wofford
  472 F.2d 822· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court should determine if the appellant disputed the restitution amount and, if so, grant relief conditioned on the state providing due process.
• Anderson v. Nemetz
  474 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-24 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the appellant had standing to challenge the Arizona vagrancy statute and that the Younger abstention doctrine did not apply because no state prosecution was pending.
• Milner v. Colonel R. H. Burson
  470 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that federal intervention in state criminal prosecutions is improper unless bad faith or harassment is shown, and the district court erred by not applying this standard.
• Chauncey v. Second Jud. Dist. Court
  453 F.2d 389· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 8×
• Scott v. Hill
  449 F.2d 634· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-07 ·cited 8×
  A federal court should not enjoin state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, but a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding state court reapportionment requires a three-judge court.
• United States v. Navarro
  441 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-21 ·cited 8×·via Younger V. Harris
  The district court's order properly complied with the prior mandate, allowing limited testimony from federal officials regarding the chain of custody and identification of contraband, and allowing testimony from state officials.
• Haggerty v. Scott
  2025 WL 2829541· M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15 ·cited 7×
  The Court denied most of the plaintiff's motions, finding them premature, unsupported, or procedurally improper, and denied the motion to accept the fourth amended complaint due to shotgun pleading characteristics.
• Gersten v. Rundle
  833 F. Supp. 906· S.D. Fla.· 1993-09-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief because the alleged bad faith actions did not rise to the level of an imminent prosecution or infringement of constitutional rights, and federal courts should not interfere with state contempt proceed
• Leaf v. Supreme Court OF the State OF Wis.
  979 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 7×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments, but it does not bar claims brought by individuals who were not parties to the state proceedings.
• Duty Free Shop, Inc. v. Administracion de Terrenos de Puerto RICO
  889 F.2d 1181· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 7×·via Younger Abstention
  The federal court correctly abstained from interfering with an ongoing state eminent domain proceeding under the Younger doctrine.
• Pincham v. The Ill. Jud. Inquiry Bd. & Its Members
  872 F.2d 1341· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with state judicial disciplinary proceedings under the Younger doctrine, as the proceedings were ongoing, implicated important state interests, and offered an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenge
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Garrett J. Barry
  825 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 7×·via Younger Abstention
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction was properly issued to protect the plaintiff's remedy and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• McWILLIAMS v. McWILLIAMS
  804 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 7×
  A federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as a court of that state would, barring a § 1983 claim based on issues that were or could have been litigated in the state proceeding.
• Wilcox v. Honorable Edward Miller
  691 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court should have dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights complaint without reaching the merits because the plaintiff's criminal conviction was still pending on appeal in state court.
• Mid-Fla Coin Exch., Inc. v. Griffin
  529 F. Supp. 1006· M.D. Fla.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that abstention doctrines (Pullman and Younger) were not applicable, and plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief regarding the challenged statutes.
• Bundy v. Rudd
  581 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-02 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings, and a party seeking pro hac vice admission must demonstrate a protected property or liberty interest, which was not shown here.
• Gajon BAR & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly
  508 F.2d 1317· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that federal courts should not interfere with pending state court proceedings unless absolutely necessary to prevent irreparable injury to constitutional rights, and that a corporation does not possess First Amendment free speech rights.
• Jones v. Wade
  504 F.2d 428· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 7×
  The court reaffirms its prior judgment reversing and remanding the case.
• Miami Health Studios, Inc. v. The City OF Miami Beach
  491 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the Attorney General's motion to intervene and in not allowing a full hearing on the issue of bad faith harassment.
• King v. Jones
  450 F.2d 478· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts must not interfere with state court proceedings, and parties must first seek modification or dissolution of state court orders in state court before seeking federal relief.
• Cowart v. Duro
  2023 WL 5069482· M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint contained numerous deficiencies, including failure to state a claim, improper citation of statutes, and claims barred by immunity doctrines, requiring a second amended complaint.
• Rivera-Puig v. Hon. Gabriel Garcia-Rosario
  983 F.2d 311· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the closure provision of Rule 23(c) of the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment right of access to preliminary hearings, and that abstention doctrines do not apply.
• The Hosp. Council OF W. Pa. v. City OF Pittsburgh
  949 F.2d 83· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Hospital Council had associational standing to sue and that abstention was not appropriate because state administrative proceedings could not address all of the federal claims.