Bice v. Louisiana Public Defender Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “requests for monetary damages do not fall within the purview of the Younger abstention doctrine”
• explaining that the Younger abstention doctrine requires federal court to not exercise jurisdiction over suits when (1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2
• explaining that the Younger abstention doctrine requires federal court to not exercise jurisdiction over suits when (1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2
• affirming federal-court abstention where plaintiff challenged $35 fee for criminal defendants who were convicted, pled guilty or pled nolo contendere to fund the public defender’s office because an injunction would interfere in state proceedings since: (1
• if prerequisites for Younger abstention are satisfied, “then a federal court can assert jurisdiction only if certain narrowly delimited exceptions to the abstention doctrine apply.”
• cleaned up; citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).