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 4:
Line 4: − + Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + Line 15:
Line 19: + + +
added quote
*''Younger'' abstention (ongoing state judicial proceedings)
*''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)
*''Pullman'' abstention (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)
*''Colorado River'' abstention doctrine (avoid duplicative proceedings in another state or federal court)
:[[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).
The [[Fifth Circuit]] has observed that abstention by federal courts should be rare:<ref>''Duncan v. Poythress'', 657 F.2d 691, 697 (5th Cir.1981), cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012 (1982).</ref>
{{cquote|the extraordinary decision to stay federal adjudication requires more than an ambiguity in state law and a likelihood of avoiding constitutional adjudication. A district court must carefully assess the totality of circumstances presented by a particular case. This requires a broad inquiry which should include consideration of the rights at stake and the costs of delay pending state court adjudication.}}
== See also ==
== See also ==
*[[Rooker-Feldman doctrine]]
*[[Rooker-Feldman doctrine]]
== References ==
<references/>
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Abstention Doctrine]]
[[category:Abstention Doctrine]]