Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + +
improved
'''Abstention doctrine''' allows [[federal]] courts to refrain from hearing [[lawsuits]] under a variety of circumstances that concern possible interference with other proceedings.
'''Abstention doctrine''' allows [[federal]] courts to refrain from hearing [[lawsuit]]s under a variety of circumstances that concern possible interference with other proceedings.
The major abstention doctrines are:
*''Younger'' abstention (ongoing state judicial proceedings)
*''Pullman'' doctrine (when a constitutional issue might be avoided by allowing state courts to interpret an ambiguous state law)
*''Colorado River'' abstention doctrine (avoid duplicative proceedings in another state or federal court)
These circumstances include the following:
These circumstances include the following:
:[[Federal courts]] have the power to refrain from hearing cases that would interfere with a pending state [[criminal]] proceeding, see ''[[Younger v. Harris]]'', 401 U.S. 37 (1971), or with certain types of state civil proceedings, see ''[[Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.]]'', 420 U.S. 592 (1975); ''Juidice v. Vail'', 430 U.S. 327 (1977); cases in which the resolution of a federal constitutional question might be obviated if the state courts were given the opportunity to interpret ambiguous state law, see ''Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.'', 312 U.S. 496 (1941); cases raising issues "intimately involved with [the States'] sovereign prerogative," the proper adjudication of which might be impaired by unsettled questions of state law, see ''Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux'', 360 U.S. 25, 28 (1959); ''id.'', at 31 (Stewart, J., concurring); cases whose resolution by a federal court might unnecessarily interfere with a state system for the collection of taxes, see ''Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman'', 319 U.S. 293 (1943); and cases which are duplicative of a pending state proceeding, see ''[[Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States]]'', 424 U.S. 800 (1976); ''Pennsylvania v. Williams'', 294 U.S. 176 (1935).
:[[Federal courts]] have the power to refrain from hearing cases that would interfere with a pending state [[criminal]] proceeding, see ''[[Younger v. Harris]]'', 401 U.S. 37 (1971), or with certain types of state civil proceedings, see ''[[Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.]]'', 420 U.S. 592 (1975); ''Juidice v. Vail'', 430 U.S. 327 (1977); cases in which the resolution of a federal constitutional question might be obviated if the state courts were given the opportunity to interpret ambiguous state law, see ''Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.'', 312 U.S. 496 (1941); cases raising issues "intimately involved with [the States'] sovereign prerogative," the proper adjudication of which might be impaired by unsettled questions of state law, see ''Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux'', 360 U.S. 25, 28 (1959); ''id.'', at 31 (Stewart, J., concurring); cases whose resolution by a federal court might unnecessarily interfere with a state system for the collection of taxes, see ''Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman'', 319 U.S. 293 (1943); and cases which are duplicative of a pending state proceeding, see ''[[Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States]]'', 424 U.S. 800 (1976); ''Pennsylvania v. Williams'', 294 U.S. 176 (1935).
== See also ==
*[[Rooker-Feldman doctrine]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Abstention Doctrine]]
[[category:Abstention Doctrine]]