Legal Opinion
Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court of California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 8, 1994No. 92-55736PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge FLETCHER.
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Michael Dubinka, John Coleman, and Raul Meza appeal the district court’s • order dismissing their action for declaratory and in-junctive relief for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court abstained under the doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 1990, California voters adopted a ballot initiative popularly referred to as Proposition 115, which significantly altered discovery in California criminal cases by requiring that…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- 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
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Green v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Marciano v. Fahs (In Re Marciano)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Jonathan Duke v. Josie GasteloCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
- Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Katz ex rel. S.S. v. Children's Hospital of Orange CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.