Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mitchum Vs. Foster

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 19, 1972

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

57 entries 15 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. Bowles Vs. Willingham US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1944
  2. Shelley Vs. Kraemer US Supreme Court · May 03, 1948
  3. Zwickler Vs. Koota US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1967
  4. Dombrowski Vs. Pfister US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  5. Watson Vs. Buck US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  6. Stefanelli Vs. Minard US Supreme Court · Dec 03, 1951
  7. Younger Vs. Harris US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  8. Roudebush Vs. Hartke US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1972
  9. Perez Vs. Ledesma US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  10. Samuels Vs. Mackell US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  11. Boyle Vs. Landry US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  12. Dyson Vs. Stein US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  13. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  14. Truax Vs. Raich US Supreme Court · Nov 01, 1915
  15. Fenner Vs. Boykin US Supreme Court · May 24, 1926
  16. U.S. 225 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchum v. Foster
    Search
  17. U.S. 225 (1972) Mitchum v. Foster
    Search
  18. comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding ( cf. Younger v. Harris
    Search
  19. II In denying injunctive relief, the District Court relied on this Court's decision in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood
    Search
  20. civil or criminal and regardless of how extraordinary the particular circumstances may be. Last Term, in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  21. U.S. at 401 U. S. 54 . In the companion case of Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  22. U.S. at 401 U. S. 85 . See also Dyson v. Stein
    Search
  23. Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Gas
    Search
  24. In Toucey v. New
    Search
  25. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman
    Search
  26. Kline v. Burke
    Search
  27. Providence & N.Y. S.S. Co. v. Hill
    Search
  28. Treines v. Sunshine
    Search
  29. Kalb v. Fuerstein
    Search
  30. of the Federal Government as a guarantor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established. Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  31. McNeese v. Board
    Search
  32. and it believed that these failings extended to the state courts. v. Section
    Search
  33. Truax v. Raich
    Search
  34. These principles, in the context of state criminal prosecutions, were canvassed at length last Term in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  35. and it companion case. They are principle that have been emphasized by this Court many times in the past. Fenner v. Boykin
    Search
  36. Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge
    Search
  37. Beal v. Missouri
    Search
  38. Williams v. Miller
    Search
  39. Douglas v. City
    Search
  40. Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson
    Search
  41. exception), with Baines v. City
    Search
  42. See Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  43. U. S. 37 , 401 U. S. 54 . See also Lynch v. Household
    Search
  44. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood
    Search
  45. See First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Village
    Search
  46. Byrne v. Karaleis
    Search
  47. the then strong feeling against the unwarranted intrusion of federal courts upon state sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  48. is doubtful. Compare Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 345, 347-348, with Gunter v. Atlantic
    Search
  49. Toucey v. New
    Search
  50. See French v. Hay
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial