Citation network
Deakins Vs. Monaghan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 12, 1988
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. 193 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Deakins v. MonaghanSearch
-
U.S. 193 (1988) Deakins v. MonaghanSearch
-
motion to dismiss on abstention grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
District Court would not hold up its end of the comity bargain. Second, even if Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
jury investigation. We granted certiorari, 479 U.S. 1063 (1987), to consider whether the District Court, under Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
the complaint. 798 F.2d 632 (1986). A divided panel ruled that the abstention doctrine pronounced in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
in the state forum in which the companion equitable claims were being adjudicated. 798 F.2d at 635-636, citing Crane v. FauverSearch
-
Williams v. RedSearch
-
the Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies between litigants. Preiser v. NewkirkSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
he complaint was filed, and continued to exist when review was obtained in the Court of Appeals. Sosna v. IowaSearch
-
and should therefore shield it from a conclusion of mootness. See Murphy v. HuntSearch
-
be vacated with directions to the District Court to dismiss the relevant portion of the complaint. See United States v. MunsingwearSearch
-
of the propriety of the District Court's dismissal of respondents' claims for monetary relief. See University of Texas v. CamenischSearch
-
rather than dismiss, claims that are not cognizable in the parallel state proceeding. 798 F.2d at 635, citing Crane v. FauverSearch
-
F.2d 325 (1985), and Williams v. RedSearch
-
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 424 U. S. 800 , 424 U. S. 813 , 424 U. S. 817 (1976), quoting County of Allegheny v. FrankSearch
-
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
the converse assumption that the States cannot be trusted to enforce federal rights with adequate diligence. See Stone v. PowellSearch
-
U. S. 493 -494, n. 35 (1976). Second, petitioners' contention that Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
the federal courts. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. ConcentratedSearch
-
for equitable relief in federal court should the disputed conduct be repeated. The Court recognized in United States v. MunsinswearSearch
-
In both Crane v. FauverSearch
-
F.2d at 329, and Williams v. RedSearch
-
The federal action sought damages as well as an order for the return of the seized property. Relying on Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
their jurisdiction, absent extraordinary circumstances, as we recognized in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 207 damages claim should be stayed and not dismissed. Ante at 484 U. S. 202 -203, citing Crane v. FauverSearch
-
F.2d 325 (CA3 1985), and Williams v. RedSearch
-
proceeding underway. See, e.g., Crane v. FauverSearch
-
rule that the federal courts should not interfere with or preempt the progress of state criminal proceedings. Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Guerro v. MulhearnSearch
-
declaratory judgment action aimed at adjudicating a federal issue involved in a state criminal proceeding. See Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
McCurry v. AllenSearch
-
Doby v. StrengthSearch
-
See Landrigan v. WarwickSearch
-
McCurry v. AllenSearch
-
Mann v. JettSearch
-
Parkhurst v. StateSearch
-
courts have taken a more ambiguous position, akin to the Third Circuit cases discussed supra. See, e.g., Suggs v. BrannonSearch
-
Giulini v. BlessingSearch
-
Singleton v. NewSearch
-
the Fifth and Sixth Circuits both hold that Younger has no applicability to a claim for damages, see Thomas v. TexasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial