Citation network
Mtm, Inc. Vs. Baxley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 1975
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
-
U.S. 799 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court MTM, Inc. v. BaxleySearch
-
U.S. 799 (1975) MTM, Inc. v. BaxleySearch
-
state proceedings, the three-judge District Court applied Page 420 U. S. 801 the test enunciated in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and arguing that the requirements of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
on these facts. We noted probable jurisdiction over this appeal and set this case for argument in tandem with Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
In Gonzalez v. EmployeesSearch
-
of a constitutional claim for injunctive relief do not provide a consistent answer to this question. Compare Lynch v. HouseholdSearch
-
Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538 (1972), with Mengelkoch v. IndustrialSearch
-
U. S. 427 (1970). See Gonzalez v. PageSearch
-
policy of minimizing the mandatory docket of this Court in the interest of sound judicial administration. Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
Gonzalez v. EmployeesSearch
-
Alabama statute, and instead based its order on the impropriety of federal intervention under our decision in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
or in the initial briefs filed in this case. At oral argument, in light of our intervening decision in Gonzalez v. EmployeesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Gonzalez, supra, which we have considered in resolving this jurisdictional question. See Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
judge court where the ground for such dismissal rests solely on the impropriety of federal intervention. See Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
See Stamler v. WillisSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the result. The Court holds that dismissing a suit on Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
constitutionality of state statutes is involved. This approach may appear to be at odds with Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. EpsteinSearch
-
relief are alleged in a complaint, a single judge should be able to rule on a motion to dismiss based on Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
grounds. Much water has gone over the dam since Idlewild was decided. For one thing, in Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
latter was deemed frivolous, leaving only the statutory issue for which three judges were not required. But in Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
desirable in this case, for the result of the Court's holding is to require a three-judge court to pass on Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
to say that a three-judge court was not required here. Idlewild concerned abstention under Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
and therefore no relief has been finally denied in federal court. In contrast to that deferral of relief, Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
To the extent that Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
I could at least concur in the result if I believed that a single judge had the power to dismiss based on Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Recently the Court's hostility to three-judge courts has led it to restrict the need for such courts. See Gonzalez v. EmployeesSearch
-
for courts to resolve issues in a way which takes into account all relevant aspects of the lawsuit. See Parks v. HardenSearch
-
scheme, but I think that much of the blame must be placed on this Court. What is the status of Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. EpsteinSearch
-
in the way the majority has done here. I would reverse the decision below for the reasons given in Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court MTM, Inc. v. BaxleySearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
Compare Lynch v. HouseholdSearch
-
Mengelkoch v. IndustrialSearch
-
See Gonzalez v. PageSearch
-
Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
See Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. EpsteinSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
See Gonzalez v. EmployeesSearch
-
See Parks v. HardenSearch
-
of Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. EpsteinSearch
-
Rosado v. WymanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial