Legal Opinion
Earle A. Partington v. Joseph M. Gedan Howard T. Chang
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 12, 1989No. 87-2375PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
Attorney Partington filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court, alleging that enforcement of Hawaii Supreme Court Rule 13 against him violated the first, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. He sought a declaratory judgment stating that Rule 13 violated these constitutional provisions and an injunction barring any further proceedings against him pursuant to Rule 13. The district court concluded that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (Younger), was…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bowen v. YuckertSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Gilbertson v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Paul E. Bettencourt, M.D. v. Board of Registration in Medicine of the Commonwealth of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Gilbertson v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Dr. Leo F. Kenneally v. Dan LungrenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. RodenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.