James E. Drury v. William Coy Cox, Sheriff of Pima County

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant 4 entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until 5 after a judgment has been appealed from, and the case has been concluded in state 6 courts
• stating that “only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have 23 federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 24 judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”
• “Apparent finality of one issue is not 9 enough” to avoid dismissal under Younger where the judgment itself is not final
• exhaustion of federal issue insufficient if criminal proceedings through direct appeal not yet complete
• “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction . . . until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts”
• “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction . . . until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).