11th Amendment, Abstention Nip Lawyer's Federal Suit.

Indiana lawyer Zena D. Crenshaw didn't like it when the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Indiana informed her that a grievance had been filed against her and then issued a subpoena seeking information about certain expenditures and about her private and business bank accounts. So she challenged the Indiana Supreme Court rule under which the commission acted, contending the rule is unconstitutional as a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights because it subjects her to an unreasonable search and seizure.

The federal district court in which her suit for an injunction was filed abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine, which comes from Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), finding that commission's actions were ongoing state judicial proceedings implicating important state interests. Affirming and modifying, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT