Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Juidice Vs. Vail

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 22, 1977

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

62 entries 8 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. O'Shea Vs. Littleton US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1974
  2. Steffel Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1974
  3. Harkrader Vs. Wadley US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1898
  4. Younger Vs. Harris US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  5. Mitchum Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1972
  6. Zwickler Vs. Koota US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1967
  7. GersteIn Vs. Pugh US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1975
  8. Gibson Vs. Berryhill US Supreme Court · May 07, 1973
  9. U.S. 327 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Juidice v. Vail
    Search
  10. U.S. 327 (1977) Juidice v. Vail
    Search
  11. the contempt citations or the short periods of incarceration that would entitle them to injunctive relief. Huffman v. Pursue
    Search
  12. U. S. 331 -333. 2. The District Court erred in enjoining enforcement of the contempt procedures. Younger v. Harris
    Search
  13. Huffman v. Pursue
    Search
  14. their federal claims in the state proceedings, and no more is required to invoke Younger abstention. Gerstein v. Pugh
    Search
  15. action in light of our decisions in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  16. U. S. 37 (1971), and Huffman v. Pursue
    Search
  17. or controversy requirement associated with Art. III, to seek injunctive relief in the District Court. North Carolina v. Rice
    Search
  18. decree continued. 420 U.S. at 420 U. S. 598 . That plaintiff accordingly had the requisite standing. O'Shea v. Littleton
    Search
  19. See Ellis v. Dyson
    Search
  20. state courts. Since Ward and Rabasco have standing, and since their standing, unlike that of the plaintiff in Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  21. three Courts of Appeals have applied Younger when the pending state proceedings were civil in nature. See Duke v. Texas
    Search
  22. Lynch v. Snepp
    Search
  23. court cannot, of course, interfere in a case where the proceedings were already pending in a state court. Taylor v. Taintor
    Search
  24. of those cases. The contempt power lies at the core of the administration of a State's judicial system, cf. Ketchum v. Edwards
    Search
  25. The District Court relied upon our decision in Gerstein v. Pugh
    Search
  26. by the equitable Page 430 U. S. 337 restrictions on federal intervention in state prosecutions, Younger v. Harris
    Search
  27. be accorded only an opportunity to fairly pursue their constitutional claims in the ongoing state proceedings, Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  28. that they are enforcing the contempt procedures in bad faith or are motivated by a desire to harass. Cf. Cameron v. Johnson
    Search
  29. Rudd v. Rudd
    Search
  30. the possibility, of future contempt orders, none of the appellees, excepting Ward and Rabasco, have standing. O'Shea v. Littleton
    Search
  31. Linda R. S. v. Richard
    Search
  32. Vail v. Quinlan
    Search
  33. Toucey v. New
    Search
  34. serves, of course, to vindicate and preserve the private interests of competing litigants, People ex rel. Munsell v. Court
    Search
  35. in aid of the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory, Ketchum v. Edwards
    Search
  36. Gompers v. Bucks
    Search
  37. King v. Barnes
    Search
  38. appear settled in New York whether persons faced with civil contempt will be assigned counsel if indigent, see Rudd v. Rudd
    Search
  39. suit seeking only such relief in the District Court. Cf. Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  40. MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in the judgment. The major premise underlying the Court's holding in Younger v. Harris
    Search
  41. act if the alternative legal remedy is inadequate. Indeed, the major premise underlying the Court's holding in Mitchum v. Foster
    Search
  42. is inappropriate. I am less certain about the possible applicability of Pullman abstention, Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  43. appellees will have suffered the harm they seek to avoid before the state proceeding is concluded. Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh
    Search
  44. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting. I dissent. My earlier dissent in Huffman v. Pursue
    Search
  45. however, my strong disagreement with the process begun in Huffman, carried to the extreme in last Term's Paul v. Davis
    Search
  46. Even if the extension of Younger v. Harris
    Search
  47. England v. Louisiana
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Juidice v. Vail
    Search
  49. and Huffman v. Pursue
    Search
  50. the District Court. North Carolina v. Rice
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial