Younger V. Harris

166 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Am. News Co., Inc. v. Ladas
  454 F.2d 1237· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-02 ·cited 6×
  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
• W. Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa
  958 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×
  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.
• 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.
• 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×
  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.
• Doe v. Gonzalez
  723 F. Supp. 690· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Smith v. William R. "Bill" Paulk
  705 F.2d 1279· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Jureczki v. The City OF Seabrook
  668 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Overmyer v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md.
  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.
• COX v. The Honorable Robert Turley
  506 F.2d 1347· 6th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Int'l News Distribs., Inc. v. Shriver
  488 F.2d 1350· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-19 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Helfant v. Kugler
  484 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court concurred that extraordinary circumstances may justify federal intervention despite Younger abstention.
• Reilly v. Doyle
  483 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 4×
  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
• Reed v. Giarrusso
  462 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-26 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Rialto Theatre Co. v. City OF Wilmington
  440 F.2d 1326· 3d Cir.· 1971-04-19 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Kent v. J.B. Thornhill
  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.
• Leiphart v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-05-12 ·cited 2×
  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.
• Grant v. Meyer
  828 F.2d 1446· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Colorado's statute prohibiting payment for the circulation of initiative or referendum petitions violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that paying circulators is a form of political speech essential for dissemin
• Bishop v. State BAR OF Tex.
  791 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State Bar of Texas is not a 'person' under § 1983 and that its employees are protected by immunity, affirming the dismissal of Bishop's claims.
• Rhoades v. The Honorable Craig Penfold
  694 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction, did not err in refusing to abstain or apply res judicata, but did err in granting summary judgment and certifying a class action.
• Dommer v. Crawford
  638 F.2d 1031· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The district court's order was an impermissible interference with state criminal law administration, as plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in state courts and failed to exhaust those remedies.
• Benjamin H. Munson, M.D. v. Janklow
  563 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-21 ·cited 2×
• Tatzel v. Hon. Morton J. Hanlon
  530 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a stay of state proceedings and dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies or demonstrate futility.
• Thompson v. Groshens
  475 F.2d 127· 3d Cir.· 1973-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal court should not entertain an injunction action to relitigate constitutional challenges to a state statute already rejected by state courts.
• Hopson v. Asch
  457 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts should not enjoin or grant declaratory relief for pending state court proceedings unless exceptional circumstances are present.
• Musick v. Jonsson
  449 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the irreparable injury required for federal injunctive relief against the ordinance.
• EVE Prods., Inc. v. Shannon
  439 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts should not enjoin state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury.
• Jackson v. The Honorable Arturo Cintron Garcia
  665 F.2d 395· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 1×
  A federal court injunction to compel a state court to conduct proceedings in English is barred by the Younger doctrine, absent compelling circumstances and a showing of irreparable harm.
• Castro v. Lee Cnty. Jail
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state criminal proceedings, and a § 1983 claim is not the proper vehicle to challenge guilt or prosecution.
• Brumbaugh v. Fitzgeorge
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-13
  A public defender is not a state actor for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Blount v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Orange)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-06
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a pretrial detainee's habeas corpus petition when state court procedures can resolve the issues raised.
• Terrell v. Wendy
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-18
  A plaintiff cannot sue private citizens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they do not act under color of state law. Federal courts must also abstain from interfering in pending state criminal proceedings.
• Graham v. Torres
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-10
  The court held that a federal court must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings and that judicial and prosecutorial immunity bars claims against state officials for actions taken in those proceedings.
• Norfleet v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-03
  A pretrial detainee cannot seek federal habeas relief under § 2254, and relief under § 2241 is denied due to unexhausted claims and principles of abstention.
• Bingham v. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-23
  The court held that a pretrial detainee's petition for habeas corpus is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and, when construed under § 2241, fails due to lack of exhaustion and principles of abstention, and a certificate of appealability should be denied.
• Williams v. Bryant
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was subject to dismissal.
• Freeman v. Desantis
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-08
  The court held that federal intervention in pending state criminal proceedings is barred by the abstention doctrine and principles of exhaustion and comity, and confinement claims must be brought via habeas corpus.
• Gomez v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  966 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-20
• Thomas v. Fiedler
  884 F.2d 990· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-06
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because subsequent legislative amendments to the challenged Act rendered the case moot, and the district court's judgment is vacated with directions to dismiss the complaint.
• Trower v. Maple
  774 F.2d 673· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-23
  The court held that the parents failed to prove a retaliatory motive or other factual basis to justify enjoining the state prosecution, and the trial court's finding of no bad faith was not clearly erroneous.
• Pietzsch v. Mattox
  719 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-10
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from judgment on the constitutionality of the Texas statutes.
• Palmer v. Schneider
  699 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-04
  The court held that federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings absent specific exceptions, and no such exceptions applied here.
• The Strode Publishers, Inc. v. Lou Holtz and Wally Hall
  665 F.2d 333· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-07
  The pendency of a state court action between the same parties is not a sufficient basis for a federal court to dismiss a properly filed federal action.
• Dolack v. Allenbrand
  548 F.2d 891· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-24
  Federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state criminal prosecutions absent 'special circumstances' due to principles of comity and respect for state functions.
• Greenmount Sales, Inc. v. Davila
  479 F.2d 591· 4th Cir.· 1973-05-23
  The First Amendment does not require a prior adversary judicial hearing before government authorities seize single copies of allegedly obscene publications for use as evidence in criminal prosecutions.
• Eames v. Sargent Pitcher, Jr.
  468 F.2d 905· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-27
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a cause of action for injunctive relief against state murder prosecutions.
• Phillips v. Osborne
  444 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-13
  A federal court cannot enjoin a state court action to protect a prior federal decree when the prior decree did not actually litigate or decide the substantive issues now raised in state court.