Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. Harris et al.; Boyle, Judge, et al. v. Landry et al.; Samuels et al. v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.; Fernandez v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.; Boddie et al. v. Connecticut et al.; Sanks et al. v. Georgia et al.; Dyson et al. v. Stein; Byrne, District Attorney of Suffolk County, et al. v. Karalexis et al., 1970 — 399 U.S. 922 · caselaw · US
General
Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. Harris et al.; Boyle, Judge, et al. v. Landry et al.; Samuels et al. v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.; Fernandez v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.; Boddie et al. v. Connecticut et al.; Sanks et al. v. Georgia et al.; Dyson et al. v. Stein; Byrne, District Attorney of Suffolk County, et al. v. Karalexis et al.
399 U.S. 922·Supreme Court of the United States·1970
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 4.
Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. Harris et al. Boyle, Judge, et al. v. Landry et al. Samuels et al. v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al. Fernandez v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al. Boddie et al. v. Connecticut et al. Sanks et al. v. Georgia et al. Dyson et al. v. Stein. Byrne, District Attorney of Suffolk County, et al. v. Karalexis et al.
No. 6.
No. 11.
No. 20.
No. 265.
No. 266.
No. 565.
No. 1149.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U. S. 1013; restored to calendar, 395 U. S. 955];
Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U. S. 974; restored to calendar, 395 U. S. 955];
Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U. S. 975; restored to calendar, 395 U. S. 957];
Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U. S. 975; restored to calendar, 395 U. S. 957];
Appeal from D. C. Conn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 395 U. S. 974];
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 395 U. S. 974];
Appeal from D. C. N. D. Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted sub nom. Batchelor v. Stein, 396 U. S. 954]; and
Appeal from D. C. Mass. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 397 U. S. 985.] Cases restored to calendar for reargument.