Geoffrey N. Fieger v. Philip J. Thomas, Grievance Administrator, and Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state disciplinary proceedings against an attorney are “judicial in nature for purposes of Younger abstention”
• holding that state disciplinary procedures against an attorney are “judicial in nature for purposes of Younger abstention”
• finding that dismissal is appropriate when the three Younger abstention doctrine requirements are met, and plaintiff cannot demonstrate an applicable exception
• noting that “a claim of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause based upon selective enforcement ‘is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments.’”
• holding a board was enforcing rules of professional conduct was performing an adjudicative function and thus satisfied the first requirement for Younger
• finding that Younger abstention should apply where proceedings “were brought lawfully and instituted in good faith.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).