Citation network
Huffman Vs. Pursue, Ltd.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 18, 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
-
Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
Ltd. - 420 U.S. 592 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
considering whether it should have stayed its hand in deference to the federalism principles set forth in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires that we decide whether our decision in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
based on a state statute believed by the district court to be unconstitutional. A similar issue was raised in Gibson v. BerryhillSearch
-
Id. at 411 U. S. 577 . Similarly, in Speight v. SlatonSearch
-
temporarily prevented the showing of films which had not been adjudged obscene in prior adversary hearings. Cf. Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
whether it should have stayed its hand in deference to the principles of federalism which find expression in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Page 420 U. S. 600 criminal prosecutions. The issue was not a novel one, and the Court relied heavily on Fenner v. BoykinSearch
-
Ibid. We reaffirmed the requirement of Fenner v. BoykinSearch
-
Younger, we also considered whether the policy of noninterference had been modified by our decision in Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
not itself an exceptional circumstance justifying federal interference with state criminal proceedings. In Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
of restraint that go well beyond those of private equity jurisprudence. For example, Massachusetts State Grange v. BentonSearch
-
effort to enjoin the operation of a state daylight savings act. Writing for the Court, Mr. Justice Holmes cited Fenner v. BoykinSearch
-
Cf. Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
the nuisance litigation is likely to be every bit as great as it would be were this a criminal proceeding. Cf. Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
three Courts of Appeals have applied Younger when the pending state proceedings were civil in nature. See Duke v. TexasSearch
-
Lynch v. SneppSearch
-
determining whether to proceed to the merits of appellee's prayer for relief against this Ohio civil nuisance proceeding. v. AppelleeSearch
-
This claim is based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State ex rel. Keating v. A MotionSearch
-
of the statute is not possible after the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State ex rel. Ewing v. A MotionSearch
-
Other recent cases raising issues of the applicability of Younger in the noncriminal context include Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
U. S. 225 (1972), and Sosna v. IowaSearch
-
See Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
As interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court, State ex rel. Keating v. A MotionSearch
-
On this Court's remand of Keating, 413 U.S. 905 (1973), following our decision in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Huffman v. DakotaSearch
-
Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. DodgeSearch
-
Beal v. MissouriSearch
-
Williams v. MillerSearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
-
We held in Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
to pending prosecutions, the same standards apply to interference in the form of declaratory relief. See Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
a State's criminal laws has been relied on by lower federal courts in resolving Younger problems. See MTM, Inc. v. BaxleySearch
-
Palaio v. McAuliffeSearch
-
of federal issues arising in state court proceedings. Cf. Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial