An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a court of law might (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court. The United States of America —commonly referred to as the The federal government of the United States is the central United States Governmental body established by the United States Constitution. Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that Courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a " Civil action " as opposed to Justiciability refers to the ability of a text to take effect as a legal rule or to create legal effects An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a Court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific Legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or For other senses of this word see Standing (disambiguation. In the Common law, and under many Statutes standing or In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for Litigation; " a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court declining to rule in a case because In Law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak" is the practical Authority Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a Court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a Defendant to move a Lawsuit filed in state Court to the Federal district Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States Civil procedure to denote a requirement that persons seeking The US Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 USC Sections 1332(d 1453 and 1711-1715 expanded federal jurisdiction over many large Class-action Personal jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over a particular defendant ( In personam jurisdiction or an item of property Jurisdiction in rem ( Latin, power about or against "the thing") is a legal term describing the power a Court may exercise Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States Law of Civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a Court in one state Political federalism is a Political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin foedus, covenant) with a governing The Erie Doctrine provides that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction over a state law claim must apply state substantive common law in resolving the dispute Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a type of immunity that in Common law Jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's Sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of Civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases Rooker v The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U A court is a forum used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labour administrative and criminal Justice under its Such doctrines are usually invoked where lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different courts at the same time. In law a lawsuit is a civil action brought before a Court in which the party commencing the action the Plaintiff, seeks a legal or equitable remedy
The United States has a federal court system with limitations on the cases that federal courts can hear, while each state has its own individual court system. In some instances, the jurisdiction of these courts overlaps, so a lawsuit between two parties may be brought in either court - or in both. The latter circumstance can lead to confusion, waste of resources, and the appearance that one court is disrespecting the other. Both federal and state courts have developed rules determining when one court will defer to another's jurisdiction over a particular case.
Contents |
Federal abstention doctrines
The various abstention doctrines applied by federal courts are named for the Supreme Court cases in which they were enunciated. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary.
Pullman Abstention
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). Railroad Commission v Pullman Co, 312 US 496 ( 1941) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that it was Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1941 ( MCMXLI) was a Common year starting on Wednesday (the link will display 1941 calendar of the Gregorian calendar. Concisely, the doctrine holds that "the Federal courts should not adjudicate the Constitutionality of State enactments fairly open to interpretation until the State courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them. "[1] This doctrine permits a federal court to stay a plaintiff's claim that a state law violates the Constitution until the state's judiciary has had an opportunity to apply the law to the plaintiff's particular case. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States. The hope is to avoid a federal constitutional ruling by allowing the state courts either to construct the law in a way that eliminates the constitutional problem or to rule it void under the state's own constitution.
For Pullman abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent:
- There must be a state law issue that is potentially dispositive;
- That state law must be unclear; and
- That disposing of state law will avoid constitutional question
Under Pullman abstention, the federal court retains jurisdiction to hear the constitutional issues in case if the state court's resolution is still constitutionally suspect. In Law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak" is the practical Authority In Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U.S. 364 (1957) the Supreme Court held that litigants must inform the state court that they are contending that the state law violates a federal constitutional provision, so that the state court may take that into consideration when interpreting the state statute. Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1957 ( MCMLVII) was a Common year starting on Tuesday (link displays the 1957 Gregorian calendar) However, in England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners 375 U.S. 411 (1964), the Supreme Court noted that the litigants must not ask the state court to resolve the constitutional issue itself, or the federal court would be bound by res judicata to follow the decision of the state court. England v Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 US 411 ( 1964) was a United States Supreme Court decision that refined the procedures Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1964 ( MCMLXIV) was a Leap year starting on Wednesday (link will display full calendar of the 1964 Gregorian calendar. Res judicata or res iudicata ( Latin for "a matter judged" is in both civil law and Common law legal systems In such a case, the litigant seeking a judgment that the law is unconstitutional must usually appeal to the higher courts of the state, rather than seeking review in a federal court.
Younger Abstention
Younger abstention, named for Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is less permissive to the federal courts, barring them from hearing civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim. Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1971 ( MCMLXXI) was a Common year starting on Friday (link will display full calendar of the 1971 Gregorian calendar. Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties For example, if an individual who was charged with drug possession believes that the search was illegal, and in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, that person may have a cause of action to sue the state for illegally searching him. The Fourth Amendment' ( Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. In the law a cause of action (sometimes called a claim) is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue However, a federal court will not hear the case until the person is convicted of the crime. The doctrine has been extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a civil fine against someone, or has jailed a person for contempt of court. A civil penalty or civil fine is a term used to describe when a State entity or a Government agency seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution Contempt of court is a court ruling which in the context of a court trial or hearing deems an individual as having been disrespectful of the court its process and its invested The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit.
There are three exceptions to Younger abstention:
- 1. Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i. e. the state knows the person to be innocent); or
- 2. Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or
- 3. Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional (e. g. , if the state were to pass a law making it a crime to say anything negative about its governor under any circumstances).
Burford Abstention and Thibodaux Abstention
Burford abstention, derived from Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943), allows a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to abstain where the state courts likely have greater expertise in a particularly complex area of state law (the case itself dealt with the regulation of oil drilling operations in Texas). Burford v Sun Oil Co, 319 US 315 ( 1943) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a new doctrine of abstention Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1943 ( MCMXLIII) was a Common year starting on Friday (the link will display full 1943 calendar of the Gregorian calendar. In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U This is closely related to Thibodaux abstention, derived from Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959), which occurs when a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction chooses to allow a state to decide issues of state law that are of great public importance to that state, to the extent that a federal determination would infringe on state sovereignty. Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters The year 1959 ( MCMLIX) was a Common year starting on Thursday (link will display full calendar of the Gregorian calendar.
Unlike the abstention doctrines raised in federal question cases, there is a strong presumption that federal courts should not apply Burford or Thibodaux Abstention.
Colorado River Abstention
Finally, Colorado River abstention, from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) comes into play where parallel litigation is being carried out, particularly where federal and state court proceedings are simultaneously being carried out to determine the rights of parties with respect to the same questions of law. Colorado River Water Conservation District v United States, 424 U Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1976 ( MCMLXXVI) was a Leap year starting on Thursday (link will display full calendar of the Gregorian calendar. Parallel litigation is a scenario in which different Courts are hearing the same claim(s Under such circumstances, it makes little sense for two courts to expend the time and effort to achieve a resolution of the question.
Unlike other abstention doctrines, application of the Colorado River doctrine is prudential and discretionary, and is based less on comity or respect between different court systems than on the desire to avoid wasteful duplication of litigation. The classification of the doctrine as a form of abstention has been disputed, with some courts simply calling it a "doctrine of exceptional circumstances". Each of the various federal circuits has come up with their own list of factors to weigh in determining whether a federal court should abstain from hearing a case under this doctrine. Typically, such factors include:
- the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction over property
- the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction over the parties
- the relative inconvenience of the fora
- the relative progress of the two actions
- the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation
- whether federal law provides the rule of decision
- whether the state court will adequately protect the rights of all parties
- whether the federal filing was vexatious (intended to harass the other party) or reactive (in response to adverse rulings in the state court).
Note on the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine has some characteristics of an abstention doctrine, because it prohibits federal court review of state court actions. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of Civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases Rooker v However, it does not require federal courts to abstain from hearing cases pending action in the state court, but instead deems that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases already fully decided in state courts. In Law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak" is the practical Authority
State court abstention doctrines
No overarching rules national rule exists to require state courts to abstain from hearing cases brought in federal courts, or in the courts of other states. However, every state has developed, either through its courts or by legislation, some doctrine under which its courts may stay their actions in order to avoid the duplication of efforts with another court hearing the same cause of action.
In some states, doctrines exist which permit state courts to abstain from hearing cases already before other kinds of tribunals. For example, in the case of Gavle v. Little Six, Inc. , 555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters 1996), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld abstention by a state court where the state court might "undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs" or "infringe on the right of Indians to govern themselves". The Minnesota Supreme Court is the highest Court in the US state of Minnesota and consists of seven members
Dictionary
abstention doctrine
-noun
- (law): A rule under which a federal court in the United States will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a lawsuit because the suit could or should instead be heard by a state court.
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic