Leonard v. Mississippi State Probation & Parole Board

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that declaratory relief 13 was available on the basis that it is “substantially likely” that the government “would 14 abide by [the court’s] authoritative determination”
• holding that Young applied even though there was no enforcement by the defendant officials of the challenged statute governing judicial appointments by the defendants because “[The statute at issue] is simply not the type of statute that gives rise to enforcement proceedings.”
• holding that Young applied even though there was no enforcement by the defendant officials of the challenged statute governing judicial appointments by the defendants because “[The statute at issue] is simply not the type of statute that gives rise to enforcement proceedings.”
• noting that “principles of federalism” were “emphatically” implicated by declaratory relief that would require the California Legislature to amend a statute, but nonetheless allowing the plaintiff to seek such relief
• holding California governor’s power to appoint judges was a sufficient “connection” to the challenged statute limiting the number of judges in Los Angeles County
• noting “a 14 generalized duty to enforce state law . . . will not subject an official to suit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).