Falco v. Justices of the Matrimonial Parts of the Sup. Ct. of Suffolk Cnty.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, pursuant to “Sprint’s third category,” the district court properly abstained from entertaining a “lawsuit [that] implicate[d] the way that [state] courts manage their own divorce and custody proceedings”
• holding that under the Younger abstention doctrine, “district courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction only in three exceptional circumstances involving (1) ongoing state criminal prosecutions, (2) certain civil enforcement proceedings, and (3
• holding that “Younger abstention applies only to a narrow class of state civil proceedings”—those that “protect[] the State’s administration of its judicial system or its process for 19 compelling compliance with the judgments of its courts” (emphasis added)
• explaining that this factor was “not dispositive” and it was “unclear how much weight [to] afford [it]”
• holding that the plaintiff’s challenge to a New York law that required parents to pay for attorneys appointed for their children, which was filed after the plaintiff was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for nonpayment, was barred under Younger
• noting that, in deciding whether abstention is appropriate, a court may consider whether “the state proceeding affords the federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity for judicial review of his or her federal constitutional claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).