Citation network
Steffel Vs. Thompson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 19, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 452 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
U.S. 452 (1974) Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
The Court of Appeals affirmed, being of the view that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and that it followed from the reasoning of Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, considerations of equity, comity, and federalism on which Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
whether the attack is made on the constitutionality of a state criminal statute on its face or as applied. Cameron v. JohnsonSearch
-
state criminal statute is pending against a federal plaintiff at the time his federal complaint is filed, Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
judgment upon the constitutionality of the statute. This case presents the important question reserved in Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
Becker v. ThompsonSearch
-
F.2d 919 (1972). The court recognized that the holdings of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
situations where state prosecutions were pending when the federal action commenced, but was of the view that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and, furthermore, since the opinion in Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
Page 415 U. S. 459 Unlike three of the appellees in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional right. See, e.g., Epperson v. ArkansasSearch
-
provisions of state law which have provided the basis for threats of criminal prosecution against him. Cf. Boyle v. LandrySearch
-
In Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. PacificSearch
-
Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
relief inappropriate. Sensitive to principles of equity, comity, and federalism, we recognized in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 624 , 111 U. S. 637 (1884). In Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
id. at 401 U. S. 57 (BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., concurring). Similarly, in Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
to be constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid becoming enmeshed in a criminal proceeding. Cf. Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
irreparable injury -- a traditional prerequisite to Page 415 U. S. 463 injunctive relief, e.g., Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
Goldstein v. CoxSearch
-
the traditional prerequisites to equitable relief -- most importantly, irreparable injury. See, e.g., Fenner v. BoykinSearch
-
relief would be unavailable is amply evidenced by the legislative history of the Act, traced in full detail in Perez v. LedesmaSearch
-
Moreover, the Senate report's clear implication that declaratory relief would have been appropriate in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and Village of Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
of the constitutionality of a state statute carrying criminal penalties, and the report's quotation from Terrace v. ThompsonSearch
-
It was this history that formed the backdrop to our decision in Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
noted that injunctive relief might well be unavailable under principles of equity jurisprudence canvassed in Douglas v. CitySearch
-
U.S. at 389 U. S. 254 . Only one year ago, we Page 415 U. S. 469 reaffirmed the Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
holding in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
supra, at 410 U. S. 166 (emphasis added). See Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
judgment will have a less intrusive effect on the administration of state criminal laws. As was observed in Perez v. LedesmaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial