holding public interest in First Amendment even greater than that in *275 United States' property rights, therefore extending Letter to hold that "where important public rights to full dissemination of expression on public issues are abridged by state court proceedings, the principles of comity embodied in § 2283 must yield”
How later courts described this case
- holding public interest in First Amendment even greater than that in *275 United States' property rights, therefore extending Letter to hold that "where important public rights to full dissemination of expression on public issues are abridged by state court proceedings, the principles of comity embodied in § 2283 must yield”
- holding public interest in First Amendment even greater than that in United States' property rights, therefore extending Leiter to hold that "where important public rights to full dissemination of expression on public issues are abridged by state court proceedings, the principles of comity embodied in § 2283 must yield"
- holding that 2283 is not a bar
- enjoining state court order prohibiting plaintiffs from performing numerous activities related to picketing and demonstrations
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by McKusick v. City of Melbourne, FL, 96 F.3d 478 (1996)
Assuming for present purposes that it has survived O’Shea, the Machesky decision is distinguishable from this case.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Bane is DENIED.