Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Allee Vs. Medrano

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 20, 1974

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

74 entries 8 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Gray Vs. Sanders US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  2. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  3. O'Shea Vs. Littleton US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1974
  4. Steffel Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1974
  5. Dombrowski Vs. Pfister US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  6. Perez Vs. Ledesma US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
    Relied / Followed
  7. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  8. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  9. U.S. 802 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Allee v. Medrano
    Search
  10. U.S. 802 (1974) Allee v. Medrano
    Search
  11. did not interfere with pending state prosecutions, so that special considerations relevant to cases like Younger v. Harris
    Search
  12. a persistent pattern of police misconduct, as opposed to isolated incidents, injunctive relief is appropriate. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  13. prosecutions under the two remaining statutes, and for further findings and reconsideration in light of Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  14. Walling v. Helmerich
    Search
  15. NLRB v. Raytheon
    Search
  16. SEC v. Medical
    Search
  17. with prosecutions pending in the state courts, so that the special considerations relevant to cases like Younger v. Harris
    Search
  18. state remedies before bringing their federal claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to federal court. McNeese v. Board
    Search
  19. from appellants' concerted conduct. No remedy at law would be adequate to provide such protection. Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  20. U. S. 611 , 390 U. S. 620 , citing Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  21. Wright v. Georgia
    Search
  22. Edwards v. South
    Search
  23. Where, as here, there is a persistent pattern of police misconduct, injunctive relief is appropriate. In Hague v. Committee
    Search
  24. pressed with arguments by the appellants that these parts of the decree are inconsistent with the teachings of Younger v. Harris
    Search
  25. U. S. 37 , and Samuels v. Mackell
    Search
  26. a federal Page 416 U. S. 817 court is asked to intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions. Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  27. live, continuing controversy, such relief would ordinarily be appropriate if justified by the merits of the case. Gray v. Sanders
    Search
  28. is to remand the case to the District Court for further findings. Page 416 U. S. 819 Cf. Diffenderfer v. Central
    Search
  29. declaratory relief as to the statutes, then the case would not be governed by Younger at all, but by Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  30. of the District Court as to these statutes and remand for further findings and reconsideration in light of Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  31. La Casita Farms, Inc. v. United
    Search
  32. It is argued that Public Service Comm'n v. Brashear
    Search
  33. United States v. Georgia
    Search
  34. Indeed, the three-judge court is required to hear the nonconstitutional attack upon the statute, Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen
    Search
  35. U. S. 397 , 397 U. S. 402 . The instant case is nearly identical to Milky Way v. Leary
    Search
  36. U.S. at 312 U. S. 625 n. 5. This view was followed in Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  37. In NAACP v. Thompson
    Search
  38. Id. at 838. The findings here show at least that much. In Lankford v. Gelston
    Search
  39. Id. at 202. See also Wolin v. Port
    Search
  40. an appellate court determines mootness as of the time it considers the case, not as of the time it was filed. Roe v. Wade
    Search
  41. as persons deprived of their rights secured by the Constitution and laws, American Fed. of State, Co. & Mun. Emp. v. Woodward
    Search
  42. that protected First Amendment rights flow to unions as well as to their members and organizers. Carpenters Union v. Ritter's
    Search
  43. NAACP v. Button
    Search
  44. See Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  45. Cameron v. Johnson
    Search
  46. U. S. 611 , 390 U. S. 619 -620, and Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  47. and for reconsideration, in the case of the relief granted with respect to two of the statutes, in light of Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  48. remand, but of other courts that must wrestle with the myriad problems presented in applying the doctrine of Younger v. Harris
    Search
  49. II In this part, I consider the problems of mootness and standing. In 416 U. S. I discuss Younger v. Harris
    Search
  50. on the Page 416 U. S. 827 facts as it found them that appellees had overcome the burden imposed by Younger v. Harris
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial