Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).The doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them."
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. [1]
Nor was this an attempt to enjoin state criminal proceedings, as in Younger v. Harris (1971). However, Brennan also ruled that even though the case did not fall into any of the previously recognized categories of abstention, certain principles of judicial administration militated in favor of upholding the district court's decision to dismiss ...
There are several other federal abstention doctrines that derive from various Supreme Court cases, including the so-called Younger and Colorado River abstentions. The Burford abstention, derived from Burford v.
Younger’s case has progressed in the throes of a national culture war over gender-affirming care for minors. As of this year, 25 states have banned medical treatments on children who identify as ...
More than 1,000 people attended Owens’ memorial service in Ocala, Florida, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, who delivered the eulogy, The post Ajike Owens, killed in front of 9-year-old son by ...
Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate for United States federal courts to abstain from hearing a case in order to allow state courts to decide substantial Constitutional issues that touch upon sensitive areas of state social policy.