Legal Opinion
Alsager v. Board of Osteopathic Medicine & Surgery
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 16, 2014No. 13-35210UnpublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ***
The district court correctly held that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), is required here. All four of the Younger conditions are met.
First, the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery’s disciplinary proceedings are an ongoing state proceeding for purposes of Younger. It is true that at the time Alsager filed his federal action, the Board had not yet filed a statement of charges against him. See Wash. Rev.Code § 18.130.090. But it had initiated an investigation of the patient’s complaint, and the beginning of that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Amanatullah v. Colorado Board of Medical ExaminersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- Gilbertson v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Scripsamerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic MedicineCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- Daniel Lohr v. State of Oregon and Matthew McAlpin, in his official capacityDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2026
- Klopp v. Kentucky Education Professional Standards BoardDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2024
- Stockton v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.