Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gibson Vs. Berryhill

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 07, 1973

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

64 entries 6 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Mitchum Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1972
  2. illinois Commerce Comm'n Vs. Thomson US Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1943
  3. Damico Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1967
  4. Samuels Vs. Mackell US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  5. Lake Carriers' Assn. Vs. MacMullan US Supreme Court · May 30, 1972
  6. Houghton Vs. Shafer US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
  7. U.S. 564 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  8. U.S. 564 (1973) Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  9. Pp. 411 U. S. 572 -575. 2. Nor did the rule of Younger v. Harris
    Search
  10. where those proceedings were adjudicatory in character. Moreover, the District Court also held that neither Younger v. Harris
    Search
  11. his available administrative remedies before invoking the equitable jurisdiction of a court. See, e.g., Prentis v. Atlantic
    Search
  12. U. S. 675 (1943). Secondly, there is the basic principle of federalism, restated as recently as 1971 in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  13. both serious and immediate. And finally, there is the doctrine, developed in our cases at least since Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  14. McNeese v. Board
    Search
  15. II This brings us to the question of whether Younger v. Harris
    Search
  16. but also that the issue was actually decided following Younger by our summary affirmance in the case of Geiger v. Jenkins
    Search
  17. nor is the Alabama case law now cited for this proposition persuasive. See State v. Keel
    Search
  18. a subject we shall consider shortly in the context of the present case -- Younger v. Harris
    Search
  19. and have timely decided by a competent state tribunal the federal issues involved. Here, the predicate for a Younger v. Harris
    Search
  20. Cf. Ward v. Village
    Search
  21. cases that those with substantial pecuniary interest in legal proceedings should not adjudicate these disputes. Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  22. U. S. 510 (1927). And Ward v. Village
    Search
  23. IV Finally, we do not think that the doctrine of abstention, as developed in our cases from Railroad Comm'n v. Page
    Search
  24. U. S. 580 Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941), to Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan
    Search
  25. Eyeglasses v. State
    Search
  26. See Lee Optical Co. of Alabama v. State
    Search
  27. remedies. See Bacon v. Rutland
    Search
  28. remedies should, however, be kept distinct from other equitable doctrines such as those exemplified in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  29. U. S. 37 (1971), and Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  30. to the exhaustion requirement, on a variety of grounds. Most often this has been because of delay by the agency, Smith v. Illinois
    Search
  31. or because of some doubt as to whether the agency was empowered to grant effective relief, Union Pac. R. Co. v. Board
    Search
  32. where the state administrative body was found to be biased or to have predetermined the issue before it. Kelly v. Board
    Search
  33. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  34. England v. Louisiana
    Search
  35. determine those facts finally has occasioned some divergence of views among federal courts. Compare Amos Treat & Co. v. SEC
    Search
  36. U.S.App.D.C. 100, 306 F.2d 260 (1962), and Trans World Airlines v. CAB
    Search
  37. U.S.App.D.C. 391, 254 F.2d 90 (1958), with Pangburn v. CAB
    Search
  38. F.2d 349 (CA1 1962). See also Mack v. Florida
    Search
  39. See Askew v. Hargrave
    Search
  40. refrained from acting until the outcome of the Lee Optical appeal. See my dissenting opinion in Wisconsin v. Constantineau
    Search
  41. has been firmly settled by this Court's prior decisions. McNeese v. Board
    Search
  42. of Education, 373 U. S. 668 , 373 U. S. 671 -672 (1963). See also Houghton v. Shafer
    Search
  43. King v. Smith
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  45. of Younger v. Harris
    Search
  46. Younger v. Harris
    Search
  47. Prentis v. Atlantic
    Search
  48. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  49. of Geiger v. Jenkins
    Search
  50. See State v. Keel
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial