Legal Opinion
M&A Gabaee v. Community Redevelopment Agency
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 17, 2005No. 04-56134, 04-56740PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge.
We must decide whether Younger abstention is called for when a parallel state-court proceeding has formally begun but not yet reached proceedings of substance on the merits of the case.
I
M&A Gabaee (“M&A”), a California limited partnership formed by real estate developers, holds possession of two pieces of property in Los Angeles, one at 1040 E. Slauson Ave. and one at 944-1010 E. Slau-son Ave. (the “1040 E. Slauson property” and “1010 E. Slauson property” respectively). 1 Since acquiring these properties, M&A has sought permission from the Community Redevelopment…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hicks v. MirandaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gabaee v. Community Redevelopment AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Occupy Fresno v. County of FresnoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2011
- Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. OwenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017