Supreme Court· 3/22/1977

Juidice v. Vail

Citations

430 U.S. 327
97 S. Ct. 1211
51 L. Ed. 2d 376
1977 U.S. LEXIS 61

How courts have described this case

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

holding that where there are adequate state procedures, “the principles which underlie Younger call for dismissal of the action”
holding that Younger should apply in challenges to civil contempt proceedings against a default judgment debtor who failed to comply with a subpoena
holding that three-judge district court should have refrained from interfering with civil contempt proceeding arising in action to collect judgments
recognizing that comity interests counsel against federal court interference with “the regular operation of [a state’s] judicial system”
holding that Younger should apply in challenges to civil contempt proceedings against a default judgment debtor who failed to comply with a subpoena
holding that, if Younger abstention applies, a 3 || court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rehnquist, Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

767 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Juidice v. Vail

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.