Citation network
Younger Vs. Harris
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 1971
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 37 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U.S. 37 (1971) Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
would suffer irreparable injury unless a federal injunction was issued. A three-judge court, relying on Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
whether the decision of this Court in Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. EngineersSearch
-
U. S. 285 -286 (1970). Without regard to the questions Page 401 U. S. 41 raised about Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra, since overruled by Brandenburg v. OhioSearch
-
those that are imaginary or speculative are not to be accepted as appropriate plaintiffs in such cases. See Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions. In Fenner v. BoykinSearch
-
Sales Co. v. DodgeSearch
-
Beall v. MissouriSearch
-
Williams v. MillerSearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
-
Beal v. MissouriSearch
-
U.S. at 319 U. S. 164 . This is where the law stood when the Court decided Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
courts if circumstances warranted. 380 U.S. at 380 U. S. 491 , 380 U. S. 402 . Similarly, in Cameron v. JohnsonSearch
-
is minor in relation to the need for control of the conduct and the lack of alternative means for doing so. Schneider v. StateSearch
-
Mine Workers v. IllinoisSearch
-
under the Supremacy Clause, when such an application of the statute would conflict with the Constitution. Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
the speculative and amorphous nature of the required line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes, see, e.g., Landry v. DaleySearch
-
F.Supp. 938 (ND Ill.1968), rev'd sub nom. Boyle v. LandrySearch
-
the District Court, in fact, granted a declaratory judgment. For the reasons stated in our opinion today in Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
For an interesting discussion of the history of this congressional policy up to 1941, see Toucey v. NewSearch
-
Neither the cases dealing with standing to raise claims of vagueness or overbreadth, e.g., Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 88 (1940), nor the loyalty oath cases, e.g., Baggett v. BullittSearch
-
Evers v. DwyerSearch
-
to provide vindication, and by the need for speedy and effective action to protect federal rights. Cf. Georgia v. RachelSearch
-
This opinion applies also to No. 7, Samuels et al. v. MackellSearch
-
et al., and No. 9, Fernandez v. MackellSearch
-
No. 41, Dyson et al. v. SteinSearch
-
and No. 83, Byrne et al. v. KaralexisSearch
-
Cameron v. JohnsonSearch
-
State might not even be a party in a proceeding under a civil statute. Cf.Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. WadmondSearch
-
of Harris. In short, there is no reason to think that California has any ripe controversy with them. See Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
The District Court erroneously interpreted Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
are imposed on those who assert their First Amendment rights in unpopular causes emphasizes the wisdom of Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
statute being enforced is unconstitutional on its face. As Mr. Justice Butler, writing for the Court, said in Terrace v. ThompsonSearch
-
industrial ownership through political action. The statute under which he was indicted was the one involved in Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 357 , a decision we overruled in Brandenburg v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial