Deakins v. Monaghan

PETITIONER: Deakins
RESPONDENT: Monaghan
LOCATION: Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

DOCKET NO.: 86-890
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

CITATION: 484 US 193 (1988)
ARGUED: Oct 14, 1987
DECIDED: Jan 12, 1988

ADVOCATES:
Edward N. Fitzpatrick - on behalf of the respondents
Larry R. Etzweiler - on behalf of the petitioners

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Deakins v. Monaghan

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 14, 1987 in Deakins v. Monaghan

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 12, 1988 in Deakins v. Monaghan

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 86-890, Deakins against Monaghan will be announced by Justice Blackmun.

Harry A. Blackmun:

This case comes to us from the Third Circuit.

It concerns an application for a warrant to search a corporation's premises for evidence of alleged crimes that were the subject of an ongoing state grand jury investigation.

I think that statement indicates that the issue is really one of abstention.

The District Court to the Federal District Courts said that it would abstain; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case holding that there should be no abstention of equitable crimes.

In an opinion filed today, we affirm in part and vacate in part and remand the case.

We hold that there is no longer a live controversy over whether the Federal Court may hear the respondent's claims for equitable relief and the abstention issue in this regard is therefore moot till those claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.

So far as the claims from monetary relief are concerned, we hold that even if a case here some years ago will called Younger against Harris required abstention.

The District Court had no discretion to dismiss rather than to stay those claims.

Justice White has filed a concurring opinion in which Justice O'Connor has joined.