Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Perez Vs. Ledesma

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

70 entries 13 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Samuels Vs. Mackell US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  2. Davis Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1922
  3. Sterling Vs. Constantin US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1932
  4. Dombrowski Vs. Pfister US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  5. Boyle Vs. Landry US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  6. Dyson Vs. Stein US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  7. Moody Vs. Flowers US Supreme Court · May 22, 1967
  8. Stefanelli Vs. Minard US Supreme Court · Dec 03, 1951
  9. Cleary Vs. Bolger US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1962
  10. United Mine Workers Vs. Gibbs US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1966
  11. United States Vs. Griffin US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1938
  12. Zemel Vs. Rusk US Supreme Court · May 03, 1965
  13. Golden Vs. Zwickler US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1969
  14. U.S. 82 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  15. U.S. 82 (1971) Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  16. good faith state criminal proceeding during which the defense should first raise its constitutional claims. Younger v. Harris
    Search
  17. U. S. 83 MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. Given our decisions today in No. 2, Younger v. Harris
    Search
  18. No. 7, Samuels v. Mackell
    Search
  19. and No. 9, Fernandez v. Mackell
    Search
  20. No. 4, Boyle v. Landry
    Search
  21. No. 83, Byrne v. Karalexis
    Search
  22. and No. 41, Dyson v. Stein
    Search
  23. its view of the proper procedures in the then-pending state obscenity prosecution. According to our holding in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  24. evidence in state criminal prosecutions are ordinarily matters to be resolved by state tribunals, See Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  25. injury can be shown, is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate. See Younger v. Harris
    Search
  26. below (which it had not), that court would have been acting in the capacity of a single-judge court. We held in Moody v. Flowers
    Search
  27. See Public Service Comm'n v. Brashear
    Search
  28. F.Supp. at 670 n. 31. (Emphasis added.) The last clause of the quoted sentence indicates what, under Moody v. Flowers
    Search
  29. was filed, there was pending in Louisiana state court a criminal prosecution under the parish ordinance. In Samuels v. Mackell
    Search
  30. Aside from the limited local application of the ordinance, which bars a direct appeal under Moody v. Flowers
    Search
  31. against the enforcement of the parish ordinance in the court below, and now cannot appeal from it victory. See Gunn v. University
    Search
  32. The decree was plainly wrong under Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  33. U.S. at 342 U. S. 120 . See also Cleary v. Bolger
    Search
  34. application. The case thus presents a fortiori the situation in which the Court found no jurisdiction in Moody v. Flowers
    Search
  35. is therefore lacking. Gunn v. University
    Search
  36. this Court might, on direct appeal, consider the propriety of declaratory relief on pendency grounds. Cf. Zwickler v. Koota
    Search
  37. judge court may not be convened to consider the validity of a local ordinance or a statute of local application. Moody v. Flowers
    Search
  38. extend to nonconstitutional grounds for challenging a statute when a constitutional challenge is also raised. Siler v. Louisville
    Search
  39. United States v. Georgia
    Search
  40. Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen
    Search
  41. and Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  42. of action in a one-judge court where all causes of action arose out of the same set of facts. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
    Search
  43. this claim. But subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts may not be bestowed by the parties. United States v. Griffin
    Search
  44. The cases cited by appellants do not support jurisdiction Page 401 U. S. 92 over this claim. Zemel v. Rusk
    Search
  45. be joined with a constitutional attack on the statutes which purportedly authorized the action. Milky Way Productions v. Leary
    Search
  46. together with New York Feed Co. v. Leary
    Search
  47. be done, the Congress should do it. The present judgment should be reviewed in the Court of Appeals, not here. Rorick v. Comm'rs
    Search
  48. sets aside, I dissent. My views, which are not congenial to the majority, are set forth at some length in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  49. ante, p. 401 U. S. 58 , and Dyson v. Stein
    Search
  50. court intervention affecting the administration of state criminal laws that were not presented in No. 2, Younger v. Harris
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial