Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

J.B. Ex Rel. Hart v. Valdez

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided August 12, 1999No. 96-2278Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBriscoe, Circuit Judge

I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusions regarding Younger abstention and class certification. I would conclude that Younger abstention is not warranted because plaintiffs do not ask the federal courts to interfere in the periodic reviews in New Mexico Children’s Court, because the periodic reviews do not constitute “ongoing proceedings” sufficient to require abstention, and because the periodic reviews in any event do not afford plaintiffs an adequate .…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Juidice v. VailSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API