Case Citator › Green v. City of Tucson

Green v. City of Tucson

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
255 F.3d 1086
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
72 of 72
Citing cases (total)
160
Treatment dates
2004
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Green v. City of Tucson was overruled in part. All 72 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The one confirmed treatment is listed below. The en banc Ninth Circuit in Gilbertson v. Albright receded from Green's requirement of direct interference for Younger abstention and its rule that Younger abstention cannot merely delay a federal case. Green's separate holding about federal plaintiffs who were not parties to the state proceeding and its de novo review standard were outside that change. Later opinions often report Gilbertson's treatment in citation history or cite Green for those surviving rules.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

160 later cases cite Green v. City of Tucson; 72 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Green v. City of Tucson?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit receded from Green's direct-interference threshold and its rule that Younger abstention precludes rather than delays the federal action.

    Gilbertson v. Albright · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    To this extent we recede from our statements in Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1098, 1102 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), that direct interference is a threshold requirement, or element, of Younger abstention, and that Younger only precludes, but does not delay, the federal court action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Green v. City of Tucson and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace