Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Seventh Circuit· 7/23/1998

Majors v. Engelbrecht

Citations

  • 149 F.3d 709
  • 1998 WL 409882

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding 2 that the state proceeding is ongoing, even assuming that the administrative proceeding is 3 final and state-court review had not begun
  • finding that “[subsequent judicial review is a sufficient opportunity” for review of federal claims
  • finding that review of constitutional claims by way of a petition to the state court constituted “subsequent judicial review” and was sufficient opportunity to raise federal claims for the purposes of Younger
  • “That the regulation and licensing of healthcare professionals is an important matter of state concern is beyond dispute.”
  • “For purposes of Younger abstention, administrative proceedings are ‘judicial in nature’ when they are coercive — i.e., state enforcement proceedings .... ”
  • for Younger abstention purposes, administrative proceedings are judicial in nature when they are coercive, such as state enforcement proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Evans, Flaum, Wood

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Majors v. Engelbrecht

1 other CourtListener record shares 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.