Difference between revisions of "Abstention doctrine"

Revision as of 20:18, March 5, 2012

LADEDA!!!!!

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Abstention doctrine''' allows [[federal]] courts to refrain from hearing [[lawsuits]] under a variety of circumstances that concern possible interference with other proceedings.
+LADEDA!!!!!
-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).
-[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
-[[category:Abstention Doctrine]]

Difference between revisions of "Abstention doctrine"

Revision as of 20:18, March 5, 2012

Navigation menu

Search