Citation network
Ankenbrandt Vs. Richards
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1992
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. 689 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Ankenbrandt, as Next Friend and Mother of L. R., Et Al. V. RichardsSearch
-
jurisdiction and that its decision to dismiss was justified under the abstention principles announced in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
jurisdiction exists as a matter of statutory construction. Pp. 693-701. (a) The exception stems from Barber v. BarberSearch
-
Similarly, while it is not inconceivable that in certain circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford v. SunSearch
-
and that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. The court also invoked the abstention principles announced in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
relations exception to tort suits brought in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. See, e. g., Bennett v. BennettSearch
-
Cole v. ColeSearch
-
Drewes v. IlnickiSearch
-
Lloyd v. LoefflerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
McIntyre v. McIntyreSearch
-
Ingram v. HayesSearch
-
by the lower federal courts. The seeming authority for doing so originally stemmed from the announcement in Barber v. BarberSearch
-
prohibited federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over domestic relations cases. Brief for Appellant in Barber v. BarberSearch
-
such power on narrower statutory, rather than broader constitutional, grounds. Cf. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
original jurisdiction by federal courts in the District of Columbia to decide divorce actions, see, e. g., Glidden Co. v. ZdanokSearch
-
the Court itself would have lacked jurisdiction over appeals from these legislative courts. See National Mut. Ins. Co. v. TidewaterSearch
-
Palmore v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 411 U. S. 389 , 401 (1973). 3We read Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. AglerSearch
-
How. 236, 245. See Sheldon v. SillSearch
-
Kline v. BurkeSearch
-
chancery practice, some guide to the meaning of the 1789 Act's jurisdictional grant. See, e. g., Robinson v. CampbellSearch
-
As the court in Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v. RosenstielSearch
-
Patterson v. McLeanSearch
-
Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
see also Finley v. UnitedSearch
-
when it reenacted the diversity statute. Loril lard v. PonsSearch
-
at 708-709 (opinion concurring in judgment). We see nothing remarkable in this decision. See, e. g., Flood v. KuhnSearch
-
See also Simms v. SimmsSearch
-
courts to apply with equal vigor in suits brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. See, e. g., Bennett v. BennettSearch
-
Solomon v. SolomonSearch
-
Hernstadt v. HernstadtSearch
-
exception as narrowly confined to suits for divorce, alimony, or child custody decrees. See, e. g., McIntyre v. McIntyreSearch
-
tribunals over the past century and a half in handling issues that arise in the granting of such decrees. See Lloyd v. LoefflerSearch
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. A-6 (quoting Zaubi v. HoejmeSearch
-
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 817. The courts below cited Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Though we have extended Younger abstention to the civil context, see, e. g., Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. GardenSearch
-
Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. DaytonSearch
-
Pennzoil Co. v. TexacoSearch
-
It is not inconceivable, however, that in certain circumstances, the abstention principles developed in Burford v. SunSearch
-
based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and to abstain under the doctrine of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
in existence for 82 years prior to the announcement of the first abstention doctrine in Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. PullmanSearch
-
See, e. g., Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTESearch
-
Syllabus Ankenbrandt, as Next Friend and Mother of L. R., Et Al. V. RichardsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial