649 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 218 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
858 F.2d 548·
9th Cir.·
1988-09-30
·cited 4×
The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in enjoining a state criminal restitution order and in ruling it dischargeable, as the debtor had adequate legal remedies and the dischargeability issue was not yet ripe.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the utility's claims, affirming the principle that federal courts should defer to state regulatory processes in complex utility rate matters.
-
The court held that Florida Statute § 112.317(6) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because its restrictions on speech, particularly concerning confidential investigations, infringe upon First Amendment freedoms without sufficient justification.
-
The court held that abstention under the Pullman doctrine was improper because the state constitutional provision at issue was parallel to the federal constitutional provision, and the meaning of the challenged rule was not unsettled under state law. The court also found that the
-
825 F.2d 589·
1st Cir.·
1987-08-03
·cited 4×
The federal court is barred by the preclusive effect of prior state court judgments from entertaining a suit seeking to overturn those judgments.
-
814 F.2d 200·
5th Cir.·
1987-04-10
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge believes double jeopardy attaches to the bail revocation hearing, barring subsequent prosecution. Alternatively, collateral estoppel should bar the prosecution because the issue of fact was already decided.
-
The court held that federal courts should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over claims of discriminatory state taxation of railroad property under federal statute.
-
738 F.2d 271·
8th Cir.·
1984-06-29
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge believes the law enforcement officers were acting in obedience to court orders and should be afforded absolute immunity from damages liability.
-
735 F.2d 118·
3d Cir.·
1984-06-04
·cited 4×
The court held that an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on abstention doctrines is not a final judgment and thus not immediately appealable, and mandamus is inappropriate to review such discretionary decisions.
-
726 F.2d 296·
6th Cir.·
1984-02-03
·cited 4×
The court held that the challenge to the prohibition of advertisements was moot, and the challenge to the deduction of advertisement costs was subject to abstention under Younger v. Harris due to ongoing state proceedings.
-
706 F.2d 533·
5th Cir.·
1983-05-23
·cited 4×
The bankruptcy court did not err in conducting an evidentiary hearing on fraud allegations and was not required to abstain or give collateral estoppel effect to state court findings from a temporary restraining order hearing.
-
The court held that Oklahoma's one-year durational residency requirement for private employment agency license applicants violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but a simple residency requirement is permissible.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against a threatened state prosecution for violating a town's Public Display Minors Law.
-
687 F.2d 801·
3d Cir.·
1982-09-08
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the action as to Hinds and remanded the case for the district court to consider the status and standing of the organizational plaintiffs.
-
685 F.2d 202·
7th Cir.·
1982-08-09
·cited 4×
The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings against an attorney when the state has a sufficient interest and the proceedings provide an opportunity to raise constitutional claims, absent bad faith or harassment.
-
678 F.2d 1200·
4th Cir.·
1982-05-20
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court correctly applied the abstention doctrine to dismiss the complaint seeking to enjoin state grand jury proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without an adequate hearing and without considering the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine after state proceedings had concluded.
-
626 F.2d 82·
9th Cir.·
1980-06-20
·cited 4×
Federal courts should not intervene via pretrial habeas corpus in state criminal prosecutions absent "special circumstances" demonstrating irreparable injury or bad faith prosecution.
-
The court held that the district court correctly abstained under the Pullman doctrine to allow Ohio courts to interpret the challenged involuntary commitment statute.
-
588 F.2d 778·
10th Cir.·
1978-12-04
·cited 4×
The court held that while abstention was proper due to pending state court proceedings, dismissal of the federal action was incorrect; the federal court should retain jurisdiction.
-
575 F.2d 200·
8th Cir.·
1978-05-03
·cited 4×
The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine applies to parties not named in state proceedings if their interests are closely related and they seek to interfere with those proceedings, even if state appellate remedies were not exhausted.
-
554 F.2d 539·
2d Cir.·
1977-05-03
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the Overmyers' federal action, finding their constitutional claims foreclosed by prior state court proceedings and Supreme Court precedent, and awarded double costs and attorney's fees for a frivolous appeal.
-
The court held that the complaint's allegations were sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the claims of constitutional violations regarding juvenile arrest, detention, and trial procedures.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief without convening a three-judge court, as the allegations of bad faith enforcement and harassment raised a substantial constitutional question.
-
484 F.2d 1277·
3d Cir.·
1973-09-10
·cited 4×
The court concurred that extraordinary circumstances may justify federal intervention despite Younger abstention.
-
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because federal intervention was inappropriate, the allegations did not sufficiently detail a conspiracy under color of state law, and the plaintiffs failed to allege excessive force or discriminatory enforce
-
The court held that the plaintiffs possessed the requisite standing to maintain their suit challenging the constitutionality of municipal ordinances, despite the dismissal of their original charges.
-
The District Court properly dismissed the federal complaint seeking to interfere with a state obscenity prosecution, but its order regarding the return of seized films may need revision.
-
106 F.4th 1237·
11th Cir.·
2024-07-08
·cited 3×
The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris because an ongoing state civil-enforcement proceeding implicated important state interests and offered an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges, and the federal suit had not pro
-
319 F. Supp. 2d 1354·
S.D. Fla.·
2004-05-24
·cited 3×
The court held that Younger abstention applies, requiring dismissal of the federal complaint due to ongoing state proceedings concerning the same issues.
-
Federal law governing pilot qualifications and capacity to operate commercial aircraft in interstate commerce preempts state criminal laws, and therefore, the state lacks jurisdiction to prosecute federally certified pilots for operating an aircraft while under the influence of a
-
990 F.2d 1319·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-04-16
·cited 3×
The court held that District of Columbia law provides an independent and sufficient basis for the lower court's judgment, establishing private rights of action for children in foster care and those reported abused or neglected.
-
894 F.2d 512·
2d Cir.·
1990-01-16
·cited 3×
The court held that the district court correctly applied the abstention doctrine and dismissed the complaint, as the appellant failed to allege sufficient extraordinary circumstances to warrant federal intervention in a state bar disciplinary proceeding.
-
The court held that the district court properly abstained under Younger v. Harris in favor of a parallel state court action and did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions under Rule 11.
-
The court held that abstention was appropriate, recommending dismissal or a stay of the federal action pending the outcome of parallel state court proceedings.
-
The court held that abstention was appropriate for Eitel's § 1983 claim against the attorneys because it was inextricably intertwined with the state court proceedings.
-
482 F. Supp. 788·
S.D. Fla.·
1980-01-11
·cited 3×
The court held that a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to protect and effectuate its prior judgment compelling arbitration, even when that judgment is pending appeal, provided traditional equitable prerequisites are met.
-
2021 WL 877698·
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-05
·cited 2×
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-
This is a case where a pro se plaintiff, Leo Sean Palmer, filed only a Verified Petition for Emergency Injunction without filing a complaint. The court recommended denying the petition without prejudice because federal courts lack power to issue injunctive relief without an opera
-
The court held that a pro se litigant cannot bring claims on behalf of a minor child, injunctive relief requires a filed complaint, and the Younger doctrine bars federal interference with ongoing state dependency proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-01
·cited 2×
The court held that pretrial habeas corpus petitions are subject to abstention doctrines and require exhaustion of state remedies, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
-
782 F. Supp. 2d 1331·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-03-22
·cited 2×
The court granted the State Attorney's motion to dismiss, finding that prosecutorial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, and Younger abstention barred the claims against him.
-
509 F. Supp. 2d 1117·
N.D. Fla.·
2006-12-22
·cited 2×
Federal court must abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief from ongoing state bar admission proceedings under the Younger doctrine, and damages claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or qualified immunity, or fail to state a claim under the ADA.
-
Qui tam relators, lacking specific state authorization beyond their role in filing lawsuits, are not 'lawfully authorized State auditors and examiners' and thus cannot conduct visitations or examine national bank records under 12 U.S.C. § 484(b).
-
33 F. Supp. 2d 1019·
M.D. Fla.·
1998-12-23
·cited 2×
The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine, allowing state proceedings to continue.
-
120 F. Supp. 730·
M.D. Fla.·
1997-11-17
·cited 2×
The court held that Younger abstention applies, requiring the federal court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case due to an ongoing state judicial proceeding involving important state interests.
-
890 F. Supp. 1025·
M.D. Fla.·
1995-06-28
·cited 2×
The court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case involving a state administrative proceeding when important state interests are involved and the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional issues, even if the
-
977 F.2d 1259·
8th Cir.·
1992-10-19
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the appellant procedurally defaulted his Double Jeopardy claim by abandoning the sufficiency of evidence issue in state post-conviction proceedings.
-
The court held that the summary judgment record was insufficient to determine as a matter of law whether a constitutional right was violated or if the official's actions were objectively reasonable.
-
969 F.2d 461·
7th Cir.·
1992-07-29
·cited 2×