An abstention doctrine is any one of several doctrines that a United States federal court might (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of the state courts. The United States federal courts are the system of courts organized under the Constitution and laws of the federal government of the United States. ...

The various abstention doctrines are named for the Supreme Court cases in which they were enunciated. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States...

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). This doctrine permits federal courts to allow state courts to decide substantial Constitutional issues that touch upon sensitive areas of state social policy. This form of abstention allows state courts to correct things like equal protection violations for themselves by interpreting offending statutes as void under existing state constitutional provisions, thus avoiding the embarassment of having state policy corrected by the federal courts. Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1941 was a common year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). ... Under the laws of the United States, most disputes are properly taken to the courts of the state in which the dispute arose. ... The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall. ...

For Pullman abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent:

1. There must be a state law issue that is potentially dispositive;
2. That state law must be unclear; and
3. 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 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. 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. The term jurisdiction has more than one sense. ... Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1957 was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will take you to calendar). ... England v. ... Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1964 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). ... Res judicata (Latin for a thing decided) is a common law doctrine meant to bar relitigation of cases between the same parties in 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. 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. However, a federal court will not hear the case until the person is acquitted 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. 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. Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1971 is a common year starting on Friday (click for link to calendar). ... Civil rights or positive rights are those legal rights retained by citizens and protected by the government. ... In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ... The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. ... In the law, a cause of action is a recognized kind of legal claim that a plaintiff pleads or alleges in a complaint to start a lawsuit. ... A civil penalty or civil fine is a term used to describe when the state seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. ... General Contempt of court is the failure of someone to obey a lawful order of a court, disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. ...

There are three exceptions to Younger abstention:

• 1. Where the 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 (i.e., 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 Thibidaux Abstention

Burford abstention, derived from Burford v. Sun Oil, 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 law (the case itself dealt with the regulation of oil drilling operations in Texas). This is closely related to Thibidaux abstention, derived from Louisana 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. Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1943 is a common year starting on Friday. ... Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1959 was a common year starting on Thursday (link will take you to calendar). ...

Unlike the abstention doctrines raised in federal question cases, there is a strong presumption that federal courts should not apply Burford or Thibidaux 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 federal and state court proceedings are simultaneously being carried out to determine the rights of parties with respect to the same questions of law. Under such circumstances, it makes little sense for two courts to expend the time and effort to achieve a resolution of the question. Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1976 is a leap year starting on Thursday (link will take you to calendar). ...