Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'ngreen2 sentences2010The court also rested its decision on abstention under the Younger doctrine (Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 42 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , 91 S.Ct. 746 ]; Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ]; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975) 420 U.S. 592, 604 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 482 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 ]), which confirmed Congress’s intent to permit state courts to try cases free from federal court interference and under appropriate circumstances, bars the prosecution of a concurrent federal action. 2010The court also rested its decision on abstention under the Younger doctrine (Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 42 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , 91 S.Ct. 746 ]; Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ]; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975) 420 U.S. 592, 604 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 482 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 ]), which confirmed Congress’s intent to permit state courts to try cases free from federal court interference and under appropriate circumstances, bars the prosecution of a concurrent federal action. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Becerragreen1 sentence2025Appellate Waiver and Certificate of Probable Cause The Attorney General argues that we may not consider Younger’s challenge to the court’s restitution order because she waived her right to appeal and should have obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 185 (Becerra); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 86 .) The Attorney General contends that Younger is challenging the trial court’s authority to order restitution at all, not just the amount. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lentgreen1 sentence2025Even if Younger’s claim is cognizable on appeal, the Attorney General adds, the trial court had broad discretion to impose restitution as a condition of probation pursuant to section 1203.1, including as to offenses or conduct for which Younger was not charged or convicted, and in this case the restitution amount is reasonably related to Younger’s criminal conduct, consistent with the factors set forth in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 (Lent). | 1 | 1 |
Younger v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2010The court also rested its decision on abstention under the Younger doctrine (Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 42 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , 91 S.Ct. 746 ]; Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ]; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975) 420 U.S. 592, 604 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 482 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 ]), which confirmed Congress’s intent to permit state courts to try cases free from federal court interference and under appropriate circumstances, bars the prosecution of a concurrent federal action. 2010The court also rested its decision on abstention under the Younger doctrine (Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 42 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , 91 S.Ct. 746 ]; Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ]; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975) 420 U.S. 592, 604 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 482 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 ]), which confirmed Congress’s intent to permit state courts to try cases free from federal court interference and under appropriate circumstances, bars the prosecution of a concurrent federal action. | 1 | 1 |
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.green2 sentences2010The court also rested its decision on abstention under the Younger doctrine (Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 42 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , 91 S.Ct. 746 ]; Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ]; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975) 420 U.S. 592, 604 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 482 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 ]), which confirmed Congress’s intent to permit state courts to try cases free from federal court interference and under appropriate circumstances, bars the prosecution of a concurrent federal action. 2010The court also rested its decision on abstention under the Younger doctrine (Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 42 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , 91 S.Ct. 746 ]; Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ]; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975) 420 U.S. 592, 604 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 482 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 ]), which confirmed Congress’s intent to permit state courts to try cases free from federal court interference and under appropriate circumstances, bars the prosecution of a concurrent federal action. | 1 | 1 |
Mission Oaks Mobile Home Park, a California General Partnership v. City of Hollister Hollister Mobilehome Rent Commissiongreen2 sentences2006The Younger doctrine espouses “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” (Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ].) “Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. [Citation.]” (The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103.) The district co 2006The Younger doctrine espouses “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” (Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ].) “Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. [Citation.]” (The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103.) The district co | 1 | 1 |
Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit Districtgreen2 sentences1991See also Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 173 , 465 P.2d 61 , 77 A.L.R.3d 398 ]; State Dept, of Corrections v. Workmen’s Comp. 1991See also Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 173 , 465 P.2d 61 , 77 A.L.R.3d 398 ]; State Dept, of Corrections v. Workmen’s Comp. | 1 | 1 |
Wooley v. Maynardgreen2 sentences1980(See generally, Laycock, Federal Interference with State Prosecutions: The Need for Prospective Relief, 1977 Sup.Ct.Rev. 193.) In any event the high court has recently stated that the Younger doctrine does not state “an absolute policy and in some circumstances injunctive relief may be appropriate. ‘To justify such interference there must be exceptional circumstances and a clear showing that an injunction is necessary in order to afford adequate protection of constitutional rights.’ Spielman Motor Co. [(1935) 295 U.S.] at 95. . . .” (Wooley v. Maynard (1977) 430 U.S. 705, 712 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 752, 1980(See generally, Laycock, Federal Interference with State Prosecutions: The Need for Prospective Relief, 1977 Sup.Ct.Rev. 193.) In any event the high court has recently stated that the Younger doctrine does not state “an absolute policy and in some circumstances injunctive relief may be appropriate. ‘To justify such interference there must be exceptional circumstances and a clear showing that an injunction is necessary in order to afford adequate protection of constitutional rights.’ Spielman Motor Co. [(1935) 295 U.S.] at 95. . . .” (Wooley v. Maynard (1977) 430 U.S. 705, 712 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 752, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco
green
2 sentences2010(The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 .) If the Younger doctrine applies, the concurrent federal action must be dismissed, as the action was here. 2010(The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 .) If the Younger doctrine applies, the concurrent federal action must be dismissed, as the action was here. | 2 | 2006–2010 |
People v. Panizzon
green
1 sentence2025Appellate Waiver and Certificate of Probable Cause The Attorney General argues that we may not consider Younger’s challenge to the court’s restitution order because she waived her right to appeal and should have obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 185 (Becerra); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 86 .) The Attorney General contends that Younger is challenging the trial court’s authority to order restitution at all, not just the amount. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kizer v. County of San Mateo
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at pp. 37-39.) As the Kizer court explained, “[i]n essence, the Younger analysis presumed that Government Code section 818 was applicable and concluded that even if the Tort Claims Act applied, the port was liable for the civil penalties.” (Kizer, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 144 .) 23 that it would be actionable if inflicted by a private person.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Gov. 2021(Id. at pp. 37-39.) As the Kizer court explained, “[i]n essence, the Younger analysis presumed that Government Code section 818 was applicable and concluded that even if the Tort Claims Act applied, the port was liable for the civil penalties.” (Kizer, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 144 .) 23 that it would be actionable if inflicted by a private person.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Gov. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2021Code, § 810.8.) Thus, the Kizer court explained, “Government Code section 818 in context means that, under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff who alleges injury caused by a public entity may be entitled to actual damages for that injury, but not punitive damages.” (Kizer, at p. 145, italics added.) Consistent with that interpretation, our Supreme Court observed there was “nothing in the Tort Claims Act to suggest that Government Code section 818 was intended to apply to statutory civil penalties designed to ensure compliance with a detailed regulatory scheme, . . . even though they may have a pu 2021Code, § 810.8.) Thus, the Kizer court explained, “Government Code section 818 in context means that, under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff who alleges injury caused by a public entity may be entitled to actual damages for that injury, but not punitive damages.” (Kizer, at p. 145, italics added.) Consistent with that interpretation, our Supreme Court observed there was “nothing in the Tort Claims Act to suggest that Government Code section 818 was intended to apply to statutory civil penalties designed to ensure compliance with a detailed regulatory scheme, . . . even though they may have a pu | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences2012As we have previously noted, [Penal Code] section 1424 was enacted in part to tighten the standards for recusal so that a mere appearance of impropriety would not itself suffice; the statutory standard focuses instead on the actual likelihood of unfair treatment.” (People v. Vasquez, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 69 .) Thereafter, the Supreme Court has continued applying the Penal Code section 1424 standard, and not the Younger standard, in criminal matters where the disqualification of the prosecutor has been sought. 2012As we have previously noted, [Penal Code] section 1424 was enacted in part to tighten the standards for recusal so that a mere appearance of impropriety would not itself suffice; the statutory standard focuses instead on the actual likelihood of unfair treatment.” (People v. Vasquez, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 69 .) Thereafter, the Supreme Court has continued applying the Penal Code section 1424 standard, and not the Younger standard, in criminal matters where the disqualification of the prosecutor has been sought. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
City & County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Although the statute, which triggers disqualification of a prosecutor from a criminal proceeding ‘only if’ the conflict is ‘ “so grave as to render it unlikely that [the] defendant will receive fair treatment” ’ [citation], has superseded Younger's holding [citation], the concerns that the Court of Appeal in Younger expressed about conflicted heads of public law offices, whose policymaking and supervisory duties are such as to preclude them from being effectively screened, have not lost their relevance.” (Cobra Solutions, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 850 .) Spaccia would interpret the Supreme Court 2012Although the statute, which triggers disqualification of a prosecutor from a criminal proceeding ‘only if’ the conflict is ‘ “so grave as to render it unlikely that [the] defendant will receive fair treatment” ’ [citation], has superseded Younger's holding [citation], the concerns that the Court of Appeal in Younger expressed about conflicted heads of public law offices, whose policymaking and supervisory duties are such as to preclude them from being effectively screened, have not lost their relevance.” (Cobra Solutions, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 850 .) Spaccia would interpret the Supreme Court | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Delta Dental Plan of California, Inc. v. Mendoza
green
2 sentences2010(Delta Dental Plan of California, Inc. v. Mendoza (9th Cir. 1998) 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 .) Attorney Wallace’s application for appointment as counsel pro hac vice was initially denied because there was no California attorney associated as attorney of record. 2010(Delta Dental Plan of California, Inc. v. Mendoza (9th Cir. 1998) 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 .) Attorney Wallace’s application for appointment as counsel pro hac vice was initially denied because there was no California attorney associated as attorney of record. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Green v. City of Tucson
green
2 sentences2006The Younger doctrine espouses “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” (Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ].) “Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. [Citation.]” (The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103.) The district co 2006The Younger doctrine espouses “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” (Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ].) “Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. [Citation.]” (The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103.) The district co | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gilbertson v. Albright
green
2 sentences2006The Younger doctrine espouses “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” (Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ].) “Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. [Citation.]” (The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103.) The district co 2006The Younger doctrine espouses “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” (Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. (1982) 457 U.S. 423, 431 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 116 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 ].) “Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. [Citation.]” (The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103.) The district co | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.