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

• Gartrell Constr. Inc. v. Aubry
  940 F.2d 437· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 6×
  A state's contractor licensing requirement is preempted by federal law when applied to a contractor performing work for the federal government, as it interferes with federal procurement functions and the federal determination of contractor responsibility.
• In re William Michael Fussell f/d/b/a F-V Ranch and Julia White Fussell v. Karen Price as Dist. Attorney of Shelby Cnty.
  928 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A bankruptcy court may enjoin a state criminal proceeding only if the requisites of both Younger v. Harris and the Anti-Injunction Act are met, including the identification of a federally protected right threatened by the prosecution.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. State
  929 F.2d 1532· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim of federal preemption does not fall within the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, and thus the district court erred in enjoining the state prosecution based on preemption alone.
• Hughes v. Lipscher
  906 F.2d 961· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 6×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding the case pending a decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the interpretation of a state administrative directive.
• Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n OF R.I. v. Pfeiffer
  832 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 6×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from adjudicating a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, as such direct challenges are not subject to abstention doctrines when no state proceedings are pending.
• Moses v. Cnty. OF Kenosha
  826 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 6×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the entire action after adjudicating the federal constitutional claim and abstaining on the state law claim.
• Ronwin v. Dunham
  818 F.2d 675· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly abstained from deciding the federal claims based on the Younger abstention doctrine.
• Kelser v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs. & John Q. Isaacs & Ms. Charlotte Gammer
  679 F.2d 1092· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while abstention was proper, dismissal was not; the case should have been retained on the docket pending state court resolution.
• Benson v. Superior Court Dep't OF the Trial Court OF Mass. & Francis X. Bellotti
  663 F.2d 355· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar prosecution for conspiracy after acquittal on substantive arson charges, and that claims regarding relitigation of facts are not yet ripe for federal review.
• Phelps v. Kan. Supreme Court
  662 F.2d 649· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court cannot review state disbarment proceedings and that the attorney's due process claim failed because the disbarment could be sustained on other charges that were properly noticed and adjudicated.
• Davis v. Rendell
  659 F.2d 374· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court should address the prosecutor's immunity defense in the first instance, and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
• Alfred "Skip" Robinson v. Stovall
  646 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine does not bar federal court access for plaintiffs who have not been arrested or are not subject to pending state prosecutions, even if their interests are intertwined with those who are.
• Flangas v. State BAR OF Nev.
  655 F.2d 946· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction against state disciplinary proceedings because the appellant failed to exhaust available state remedies for alleged judicial bias.
• Chris Simopoulos, M.D. v. Va. State Bd. OF Med.
  644 F.2d 321· 4th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action under the Younger abstention doctrine, as federal courts should not interfere with pending state proceedings.
• Walker v. Wegner
  624 F.2d 60· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris is not appropriate because the administrative proceeding cannot resolve the constitutional claims and requiring exhaustion would cause undue delay and prior restraint.
• Caldwell v. Camp
  594 F.2d 705· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate for both equitable and damage claims related to an ongoing state forfeiture proceeding, but the dismissal should be without prejudice.
• Bette Bonn Ledwith and Evelyn Parker v. Douglas
  568 F.2d 117· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appellants' civil rights claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, abstention doctrines, and failure to allege class-based animus.
• Friedman v. Beame
  558 F.2d 1107· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the City of New York's parking regulations were not an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Williams v. State OF Wash.
  554 F.2d 369· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts should not intervene in pending state proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances, such as bad faith or flagrant constitutional violations.
• Ruthena Williams v. The Honorable C. P. Rubiera
  539 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent bad faith, harassment, or other unusual circumstances, even when seeking declaratory relief regarding the right to appointed counsel.
• Forest Hills Util. Co. & David R. Pheils, Jr. v. City OF Heath
  539 F.2d 592· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 6×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from hearing the utility company's claims, but that abstention was not appropriate for plaintiff Pheils' separate claims.
• MTM, Inc. v. Baxley
  523 F.2d 1255· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly abstained from hearing the merits of the case under Younger v. Harris principles.
• Bedrosian v. Mintz
  518 F.2d 396· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-20 ·cited 6×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action because federal courts should not interfere with state court proceedings absent substantial irreparable injury, and the state's refusal to appoint out-of-state counsel was a rational exercise of discretion not v
• The AGE OF Majority Educ. Corp. v. Preller
  512 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, their claims for declaratory relief were not and must be adjudicated on the merits. The district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment claims was reversed.
• Devlin v. Sosbe
  465 F.2d 169· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 6×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction, it properly declined to exercise it by abstaining, allowing state courts to interpret the ordinance.
• Hunt v. Rodriguez
  462 F.2d 659· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 6×
  A single judge can determine Younger abstention issues, and appellants failed to demonstrate the great and immediate irreparable injury required for federal intervention in state criminal proceedings.
• Padilla v. Hon. Harold J. Ackerman
  460 F.2d 477· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 6×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings absent special circumstances, even in civil rights actions, and that declaratory relief is subject to the same standard.
• Am. News Co., Inc. v. Ladas
  454 F.2d 1237· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-02 ·cited 6×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that while mass seizures of allegedly obscene materials require a prior adversary proceeding, federal courts should not enjoin state prosecutions absent bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances. A modified injunction allowing the state to use one
• Hodsdon v. Stabler
  444 F.2d 533· 3d Cir.· 1971-06-29 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts cannot grant declaratory or injunctive relief when a state criminal action is pending against the party seeking such relief.
• Bradley v. Ivey
  2010 WL 5476712· M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and the petitioner failed to allege such circumstances.
• Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coal. v. Florida
  651 F. Supp. 2d 1328· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-27 ·cited 5×
  The court granted motions to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity barred federal and state claims against state defendants, and that federal defendants were not properly served and failed to provide required notice for certain claims.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• City OF Hartford v. Chase
  942 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a party seeking to modify a confidentiality order must demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" or a "compelling need."
• Harder v. Rafferty
  709 F. Supp. 1111· M.D. Fla.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the parties in the Indiana action were not identical to the parties in the current federal action. The court deferred ruling on the statute of limitations issue pending further briefing.
• Am. Disposal Servs., Inc. v. O'Brien
  839 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the federal civil rights action based on abstention principles under Colorado River due to parallel state court proceedings.
• Eitel v. Verla Sue Holland
  787 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 5×
  A judge is immune from damages for judicial acts, and the right to self-representation in civil cases is statutory, not constitutional. Younger abstention does not apply to claims against private parties in completed state proceedings where no important state policies are implica
• Jewel Ann Ciotti & Mannheim Books, Inc. v. The Cnty. OF Cook
  712 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 5×
  A federal court must abstain from hearing a constitutional challenge to a state ordinance if a quasi-criminal state action is pending, provided the state forum is adequate and federal proceedings have not substantially advanced.
• Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Cuomo
  570 F.2d 1080· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that excluding ABC's management crew from campaign activities under threat of arrest for criminal trespass violates the First Amendment and warrants federal injunctive relief, reversing the lower court's dismissal.
• United States v. Kenny
  462 F.2d 1230· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 5×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a state court prosecution based on a claim of immunity granted under federal law, as the defendant can assert such immunity as a defense in the state proceedings.
• Wexler v. Lepore
  342 F. Supp. 2d 1097· S.D. Fla.· 2004-10-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the emergency rule establishing manual recount procedures for touchscreen voting systems did not violate equal protection or due process, as it provided uniform standards for determining voter intent in undervotes.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran
  959 F.2d 634· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 4×·via Younger Abstention
  A federal court should not interfere with ongoing state litigation by issuing an injunction, especially when the litigant has an adequate remedy through appeal after a final judgment.
• W. Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa
  958 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×·via Younger V. Harris
  The court held that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act permits enjoining state court proceedings barred by res judicata, not just issues actually litigated, and that sanctions for vexatious litigation require an appropriate hearing.
• Sabato v. Fla. Dep't of Ins.
  768 F. Supp. 1562· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over actions that interfere with state-supervised insurance liquidation proceedings, citing Burford, Younger, and Colorado River abstention doctrines.
• James A. Privitera, M.D. v. Cal. Bd. OF Med. Quality Assurance
  926 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 4×·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the district court's stay order, which effectively denied a preliminary injunction, was immediately appealable and that the stay itself was improper as it did not meet the criteria for any established abstention doctrine. The court also found that the district
• Alleghany Corp. v. Pomeroy
  898 F.2d 1314· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 4×
  The North Dakota statute regulating acquisitions of control of domestic insurance companies is protected from Commerce Clause attack by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and is not pre-empted by the Williams Act.
• Mychelle Davis v. Marsh
  876 F.2d 1446· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The failure to raise federal constitutional claims in the military court system bars a litigant from raising them in federal court, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, mirroring the rule for state convictions.
• Traverso v. Carleton Penn
  874 F.2d 209· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's res judicata determination was erroneous because the state conviction was overturned, and that the § 1983 action should be stayed pending the outcome of a new state prosecution under abstention principles.
• Seneca-Cayuga Tribe OF Oklahoma v. State OF Okla. ex rel. David L. Thompson
  874 F.2d 709· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court was not required to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction and properly issued a preliminary injunction against the state's interference with tribal bingo operations.
• In re Lorraine Johnson-Allen. Commonwealth of Pa. Dep't of Pub. Welf. v. Johnson-Allen
  871 F.2d 421· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 4×·via Younger V. Harris
  The majority holds that criminal restitution orders are dischargeable debts under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The dissent disagrees, arguing they are not 'debts' and thus not dischargeable.
• Ballard v. Honorable Fad Wilson
  856 F.2d 1568· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts should abstain from enjoining or issuing declaratory judgments regarding pending state criminal proceedings under the Younger doctrine, but must retain jurisdiction over claims for monetary relief that cannot be redressed in state court.