Legal Opinion
Adam v. Hawaii
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 20, 2000No. 99-15988PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TROTT, Circuit Judge:
Richard Adam (“Adam”) filed a complaint in federal court under, inter alia, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Wayne Carvalho, the Chief of Police for the County of Hawaii (“Chief Carvalho”), and Stanley Haanio, a police officer for the County of Hawaii (“Officer Haanio”) violated his federal and constitutional rights. The district court dismissed with prejudice Adam’s second amended complaint against Chief Carvalho and Officer Haanio based on Younger abstention, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and denied Adam’s request to file a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Dcd Programs, Ltd. v. Michael W. Leighton, Hill, Farrer & BurrillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Deakins v. MonaghanSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Gilbertson v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Gilbertson v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Green v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Green v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.