24:
723:, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.)
318:, 312 U.S. 496 (1941). 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." This doctrine permits a federal court to stay a plaintiff's claim that a state law violates the
604:, the Florida Court of Appeals cited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in rejecting a fraud and emotional distress lawsuit where a cemetery allegedly failed to provide a "proper Jewish burial" to the plaintiff's husband. Other courts have issued similar rulings in disputes over foods claimed to be
416:
to sue the state for illegally searching him. However, a federal court will not hear the case until the criminal case is adjudicated favorably for the criminal defendant. The doctrine has been extended to state civil proceedings in aid of and closely related to state criminal statutes, administrative
322:
until the state's judiciary has had an opportunity to apply the law to the plaintiff's particular case. The hope is to avoid a federal constitutional ruling by allowing the state courts to construe the law in a way that eliminates the constitutional problem or to rule it void under the state's own
596:
Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, civil courts cannot delve into matters that focus on "theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of a church to the standard of morals required of them." Inserting the court’s secular values
636:
to hear cases already fully decided in state courts. The doctrine is not a judicially created exception to federal jurisdiction. Rather, the Rooker and
Feldman cases simply recognized the fact that Congress has not granted the federal district or appeals courts statutory jurisdiction to consider
282:
The United States has a federal court system with limitations on the cases that it can hear, while each state has its own individual court system. In some instances, the jurisdiction of these courts overlap, so a lawsuit between two parties may be brought in either or both courts. The latter
631:
has some characteristics of an abstention doctrine, because it prohibits federal court review of state court actions. 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
283:
circumstance can lead to confusion, waste resources, as well as cause 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.
407:
claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim in state court. For example, if an individual who was charged with drug possession under a state law believes that the search was illegal, and in violation of their
1085:
2002:
421:. 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 undergone proceedings of substance on the merits of the federal suit.
1877:
1300:
274:
is any of several doctrines that a United States court may (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case if hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court. Such doctrines are usually invoked where
1292:
1260:
660:
permits federal courts to enjoin state courts from hearing matters if necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of the federal court. But every state has some doctrine that lets its courts stay actions to avoid duplicative litigation.
379:
to follow the decision of the state court. 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.
1713:
362:
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
2058:
1962:
1705:
257:
1308:
438:
Where the law being enforced is flagrantly and patently 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).
993:
1665:
1657:
535:
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.
1284:
985:
527:
2197:
556:
Each of the various federal circuits has come up with its own list of factors to weigh in determining whether to abstain from hearing a case under this doctrine. Typically, these include:
1101:
495:
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.
571:
2090:
969:
672:
upheld abstention 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".
597:
into religious affairs, the rationale goes, would inject the "power of the state into the forbidden area of religious freedom contrary to the principles of the First
Amendment."
365:
1641:
1332:
471:
The case presents "difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar," or
1970:
463:, 319 U.S. 315 (1943), allows a federal court to abstain in complex administrative processes (the case itself dealt with the regulation of oil drilling operations in Texas).
250:
953:
487:
474:
The adjudication of the case in a federal forum "would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern."
409:
1569:
1146:
2082:
1138:
1585:
902:
1348:
243:
1681:
1489:
600:
Courts have also declined to resolve disputes arising out of a business's claim that some good or service complied with the laws of a particular religion. In
1689:
1316:
961:
553:
The classification of the doctrine as a form of abstention has been disputed, with some courts simply calling it a "doctrine of exceptional circumstances".
1380:
1163:
686:
354:
1593:
840:
808:
2162:
2074:
2404:
1158:
210:
1861:
890:
31:
587:
whether the federal filing was vexatious (intended to harass the other party) or reactive (in response to adverse rulings in the state court).
1340:
1109:
1005:
789:
Serbian E. Orthodox
Diocese for U.S. & Can. v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 714 (1976) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 733 (1871)).
229:
2106:
1601:
1445:
88:
1180:
664:
Some states have doctrines that let state courts abstain from hearing cases already pending in other kinds of tribunals. For example, in
2319:
1228:
1024:
656:
No national rule requires state courts to abstain from hearing cases brought in federal courts or in courts of other states, though the
1994:
1396:
937:
899:
638:
314:
2399:
2252:
133:
1356:
1697:
1388:
916:
182:
2034:
1986:
1324:
1236:
498:
Unlike the abstention doctrines raised in federal question cases, there is a strong presumption that federal courts should
2066:
1795:
1420:
1404:
1093:
279:
involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems at the same time (such as federal and state courts).
108:
2098:
2010:
1481:
1204:
1130:
1121:
220:
1779:
1220:
1196:
292:
99:
352:
to hear the constitutional issues in the case if the state court's resolution is still constitutionally suspect. In
2335:
1537:
1412:
1016:
883:
319:
2146:
1505:
168:
123:
2394:
2367:
2138:
1787:
1577:
1545:
1252:
1032:
78:
23:
1673:
2351:
2343:
2280:
1922:
1561:
1553:
1372:
1069:
669:
625:
2114:
1832:
1529:
1268:
1212:
1188:
945:
681:
492:
459:
113:
2221:
2122:
1954:
1649:
1633:
1609:
1513:
1473:
876:
144:
118:
128:
340:
The disposition of the state ground could obviate adjudication of the federal constitutional ground.
1938:
1914:
1824:
1771:
1457:
1244:
532:
215:
205:
161:
706:
369:, 375 U.S. 411 (1964), the Supreme Court noted that the litigants must not ask the state court to
2327:
2213:
2170:
2026:
1906:
1807:
1625:
1465:
1364:
1060:
642:
73:
417:
proceedings initiated by a state agency, or situations where the State has jailed a person for
2359:
2227:
2205:
2189:
2154:
2130:
1885:
1721:
1617:
1521:
1172:
1040:
977:
848:
816:
418:
396:
1086:
Black & White
Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.
2264:
1729:
1276:
1048:
720:
53:
2311:
2272:
2018:
1978:
1930:
1497:
868:
432:
Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i.e. the state knows the person to be innocent); or
413:
400:, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is less permissive to the federal courts, barring them from hearing
35:
2042:
2003:
Valley Forge
Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State
1946:
1897:
1869:
1750:
1077:
58:
43:
798:
Kedroff v. St. Nicholas
Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).
312:
was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for
2388:
1853:
1816:
657:
435:
Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or
192:
2050:
633:
401:
375:
349:
334:
The case presents both state grounds and federal constitutional grounds for relief;
1301:
C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of
Oklahoma
154:
1878:
Williamson County
Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
309:
1293:
College
Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board
852:
820:
291:
The various abstention doctrines applied by federal courts are named for the
1261:
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
682:
Domestic Relations and Probate Exceptions in Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
546:
is in application prudential and discretionary, concerned not so much with
337:
The proper resolution of the state ground for the decision is unclear; and
1844:
1762:
648:. It is an open question whether Congress could grant such jurisdiction.
584:
whether the state court will adequately protect the rights of all parties
68:
63:
373:
the constitutional issue itself, or the federal court would be bound by
276:
1714:
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.
605:
547:
563:
the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction over the parties
491:, 360 U.S. 25 (1959), which occurs when a federal court sitting in
355:
Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor
2059:
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
1963:
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures
609:
358:, 353 U.S. 364 (1957), the Supreme Court held that litigants must
747:, 477 U.S. 619, 627 n.2, 91 L. Ed. 2d 512, 106 S. Ct. 2718 (1986)
560:
the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction over property
404:
2299:
2250:
1748:
1706:
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.
1443:
914:
872:
1309:
Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community
841:"Opinion | Court won't decide what's a proper "Jewish burial""
809:"Opinion | Court won't decide what's a proper "Jewish burial""
994:
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
330:
abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent:
1666:
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
1658:
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
1285:
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
986:
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
528:
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
2198:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
1102:
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
572:
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
745:
Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc.
550:
as with avoidance of waste from duplicate litigation.
2091:
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
970:
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
542:
and other key abstention doctrines that came before,
366:
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
1642:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
1333:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
954:
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux
768:, 422 U.S. 332, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 95 S.Ct. 2281 (1975)
735:, 420 U.S. 592, 43 L.Ed.2d 482, 95 S.Ct. 1200 (1975)
488:
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux
2181:
1971:
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
1896:
1843:
1806:
1761:
1157:
1120:
1059:
1004:
927:
569:the relative progress of the two actions (added by
1570:Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
467:allows a federal court to dismiss a case only if:
1586:American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
1147:Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
581:whether federal law provides the rule of decision
2083:Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
1139:District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
1349:Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York
1682:Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
1490:American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
884:
602:Mammon v. SCI Funeral Service of Florida, Inc
251:
8:
1690:Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
1317:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
962:United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co.
531:, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) comes into play where
16:Doctrine prevalent in the American judiciary
637:appeals of state court decisions, only the
2296:
2247:
1758:
1745:
1594:Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
1440:
1381:Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
924:
911:
891:
877:
869:
687:Category:United States abstention case law
258:
244:
95:
18:
2163:FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
2075:Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
578:the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation
698:
181:
143:
98:
87:
42:
30:
566:the relative inconvenience of the fora
348:abstention, the federal court retains
1341:Dolan v. United States Postal Service
1110:Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States
295:cases in which they were enunciated.
230:Adequate and independent state ground
7:
2107:Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
1602:Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States
2320:Osborn v. Bank of the United States
1862:Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner
1229:Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
1025:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
756:Judice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977)
612:where that status was disputed.
1995:Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India
1397:Jam v. International Finance Corp.
938:Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
639:Supreme Court of the United States
315:Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
14:
1181:The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon
668:555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996), the
481:abstention is closely related to
135:Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
1357:Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
652:State court abstention doctrines
22:
1698:Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
1389:OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs
778:Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co
412:rights, that person may have a
2405:Legal doctrines and principles
2035:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
1987:Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
1325:Republic of Austria v. Altmann
1237:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
424:There are three exceptions to
1:
2067:DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
1796:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer
1405:Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
1094:Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
2011:City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
1205:Schillinger v. United States
1131:Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
287:Federal abstention doctrines
1780:Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
1221:United States v. Wunderlich
293:United States Supreme Court
2421:
2336:Mistretta v. United States
1562:Burton v. United States II
1538:City of St. Louis v. Myers
1413:Opati v. Republic of Sudan
1017:Murdock v. City of Memphis
780:, 517 U.S. 706, 727 (1996)
666:Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.,
320:United States Constitution
2306:
2295:
2259:
2246:
2147:TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
1757:
1744:
1554:Burton v. United States I
1506:United States v. Jackalow
1482:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
1452:
1439:
923:
910:
592:Ecclesiastical abstention
485:abstention, derived from
457:abstention, derived from
2400:Law of the United States
2368:Bank Markazi v. Peterson
2139:Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
1788:Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
1578:Muskrat v. United States
1546:Barrett v. United States
1253:United States v. Stanley
1033:Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
1008:independent state ground
79:Constitutional avoidance
2352:United States v. Hatter
2344:Peretz v. United States
2281:Cramer v. United States
1923:Massachusetts v. Mellon
1674:Thomas v. Union Carbide
1373:United States v. Bormes
1122:Rooker–Feldman doctrine
1070:United States v. Hudson
733:Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
670:Minnesota Supreme Court
2115:Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
1833:Nixon v. United States
1530:United States v. Klein
1421:Trump v. United States
1269:Saudi Arabia v. Nelson
1213:Feres v. United States
1189:Mississippi v. Johnson
946:Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
493:diversity jurisdiction
460:Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
394:abstention, named for
2273:United States v. Burr
2222:Rucho v. Common Cause
2123:Texas v. Pennsylvania
2099:Bond v. United States
1955:Sierra Club v. Morton
1650:Arizona v. New Mexico
1634:Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
1610:Wisconsin v. Illinois
1514:Ex parte Vallandigham
1474:United States v. More
1164:presidential immunity
119:Amount in controversy
32:United States federal
1197:United States v. Lee
707:Edwards v. Aguillard
1939:Altvater v. Freeman
1915:Fairchild v. Hughes
1825:Goldwater v. Carter
1772:DeFunis v. Odegaard
1458:Chisholm v. Georgia
1245:Nixon v. Fitzgerald
533:parallel litigation
272:abstention doctrine
206:Anti-Injunction Act
74:Political questions
2328:Forrester v. White
2214:Vieth v. Jubelirer
2171:Murthy v. Missouri
2027:Diamond v. Charles
1907:Bailiff v. Tipping
1808:Political question
1626:Colegrove v. Green
1466:Marbury v. Madison
1365:Samantar v. Yousuf
1159:Sovereign immunity
1061:Federal common law
900:U.S. Supreme Court
211:Sovereign immunity
2382:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2360:Stern v. Marshall
2291:
2290:
2242:
2241:
2238:
2237:
2228:Benisek v. Lamone
2206:Davis v. Bandemer
2155:Biden v. Nebraska
2131:Trump v. New York
1886:Trump v. New York
1740:
1739:
1722:Bowles v. Russell
1618:Crowell v. Benson
1522:Ex parte McCardle
1435:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1173:Little v. Barreme
1041:Harrison v. NAACP
978:Younger v. Harris
525:abstention, from
419:contempt of court
397:Younger v. Harris
268:
267:
177:
176:
54:Advisory opinions
2412:
2297:
2265:Ex parte Bollman
2248:
1759:
1746:
1730:Patchak v. Zinke
1441:
1277:Clinton v. Jones
1049:Michigan v. Long
925:
912:
893:
886:
879:
870:
863:
862:
860:
859:
837:
831:
830:
828:
827:
805:
799:
796:
790:
787:
781:
775:
769:
766:Hicks v. Miranda
763:
757:
754:
748:
742:
736:
730:
724:
721:Heck v. Humphrey
717:
711:
703:
410:Fourth Amendment
260:
253:
246:
136:
109:Federal question
96:
26:
19:
2420:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2395:Civil procedure
2385:
2384:
2383:
2374:
2312:Stuart v. Laird
2302:
2287:
2255:
2234:
2177:
2019:Allen v. Wright
1979:Warth v. Seldin
1931:Ex parte Levitt
1892:
1839:
1802:
1753:
1736:
1498:Sheldon v. Sill
1448:
1427:
1162:
1153:
1116:
1055:
1007:
1000:
919:
906:
897:
867:
866:
857:
855:
845:Washington Post
839:
838:
834:
825:
823:
813:Washington Post
807:
806:
802:
797:
793:
788:
784:
776:
772:
764:
760:
755:
751:
743:
739:
731:
727:
718:
714:
704:
700:
695:
678:
654:
622:
594:
538:In contrast to
519:
452:
446:abstention and
414:cause of action
389:
304:
289:
264:
235:
232:
134:
83:
36:civil procedure
34:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2418:
2416:
2408:
2407:
2402:
2397:
2387:
2386:
2380:
2379:
2376:
2375:
2373:
2372:
2364:
2356:
2348:
2340:
2332:
2324:
2316:
2307:
2304:
2303:
2300:
2293:
2292:
2289:
2288:
2286:
2285:
2277:
2269:
2260:
2257:
2256:
2251:
2244:
2243:
2240:
2239:
2236:
2235:
2233:
2232:
2218:
2210:
2202:
2194:
2190:Hayburn's Case
2185:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2176:
2175:
2167:
2159:
2151:
2143:
2135:
2127:
2119:
2111:
2103:
2095:
2087:
2079:
2071:
2063:
2055:
2047:
2043:Raines v. Byrd
2039:
2031:
2023:
2015:
2007:
1999:
1991:
1983:
1975:
1967:
1959:
1951:
1947:Flast v. Cohen
1943:
1935:
1927:
1919:
1911:
1902:
1900:
1894:
1893:
1891:
1890:
1882:
1874:
1870:Laird v. Tatum
1866:
1858:
1849:
1847:
1841:
1840:
1838:
1837:
1829:
1821:
1812:
1810:
1804:
1803:
1801:
1800:
1792:
1784:
1776:
1767:
1765:
1755:
1754:
1751:Justiciability
1749:
1742:
1741:
1738:
1737:
1735:
1734:
1726:
1718:
1710:
1702:
1694:
1686:
1678:
1670:
1662:
1654:
1646:
1638:
1630:
1622:
1614:
1606:
1598:
1590:
1582:
1574:
1566:
1558:
1550:
1542:
1534:
1526:
1518:
1510:
1502:
1494:
1486:
1478:
1470:
1462:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1437:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1425:
1417:
1409:
1401:
1393:
1385:
1377:
1369:
1361:
1353:
1345:
1337:
1329:
1321:
1313:
1305:
1297:
1289:
1281:
1273:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1233:
1225:
1217:
1209:
1201:
1193:
1185:
1177:
1168:
1166:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1143:
1135:
1126:
1124:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1114:
1106:
1098:
1090:
1082:
1078:Swift v. Tyson
1074:
1065:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1045:
1037:
1029:
1021:
1012:
1010:
1002:
1001:
999:
998:
990:
982:
974:
966:
958:
950:
942:
933:
931:
921:
920:
915:
908:
907:
898:
896:
895:
888:
881:
873:
865:
864:
832:
800:
791:
782:
770:
758:
749:
737:
725:
712:
697:
696:
694:
691:
690:
689:
684:
677:
674:
653:
650:
627:Rooker-Feldman
621:
618:Rooker-Feldman
614:
593:
590:
589:
588:
585:
582:
579:
576:
567:
564:
561:
544:Colorado River
523:Colorado River
518:
515:Colorado River
512:
476:
475:
472:
451:
441:
440:
439:
436:
433:
388:
382:
342:
341:
338:
335:
323:constitution.
303:
297:
288:
285:
266:
265:
263:
262:
255:
248:
240:
237:
236:
234:
233:
228:
226:
222:Rooker–Feldman
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
189:
186:
185:
179:
178:
175:
174:
173:
172:
165:
158:
148:
147:
141:
140:
139:
138:
131:
126:
121:
116:
111:
103:
102:
100:Subject-matter
92:
91:
85:
84:
82:
81:
76:
71:
66:
61:
56:
50:
47:
46:
44:Justiciability
40:
39:
28:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2417:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2392:
2390:
2370:
2369:
2365:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2354:
2353:
2349:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2338:
2337:
2333:
2330:
2329:
2325:
2322:
2321:
2317:
2314:
2313:
2309:
2308:
2305:
2298:
2294:
2283:
2282:
2278:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2267:
2266:
2262:
2261:
2258:
2254:
2249:
2245:
2230:
2229:
2224:
2223:
2219:
2216:
2215:
2211:
2208:
2207:
2203:
2200:
2199:
2195:
2192:
2191:
2187:
2186:
2184:
2180:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2141:
2140:
2136:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2117:
2116:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2100:
2096:
2093:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2069:
2068:
2064:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2032:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1957:
1956:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1928:
1925:
1924:
1920:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1903:
1901:
1899:
1895:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1864:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1855:
1854:Poe v. Ullman
1851:
1850:
1848:
1846:
1842:
1835:
1834:
1830:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1819:
1818:
1817:Baker v. Carr
1814:
1813:
1811:
1809:
1805:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1774:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1766:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1743:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1683:
1679:
1676:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1580:
1579:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1438:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1167:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1009:
1003:
996:
995:
991:
988:
987:
983:
980:
979:
975:
972:
971:
967:
964:
963:
959:
956:
955:
951:
948:
947:
943:
940:
939:
935:
934:
932:
930:
926:
922:
918:
913:
909:
904:
901:
894:
889:
887:
882:
880:
875:
874:
871:
854:
850:
846:
842:
836:
833:
822:
818:
814:
810:
804:
801:
795:
792:
786:
783:
779:
774:
771:
767:
762:
759:
753:
750:
746:
741:
738:
734:
729:
726:
722:
716:
713:
709:
708:
702:
699:
692:
688:
685:
683:
680:
679:
675:
673:
671:
667:
662:
659:
658:All Writs Act
651:
649:
647:
646:
640:
635:
630:
628:
619:
615:
613:
611:
607:
603:
598:
591:
586:
583:
580:
577:
574:
573:
568:
565:
562:
559:
558:
557:
554:
551:
549:
545:
541:
536:
534:
530:
529:
524:
516:
513:
511:
509:
505:
501:
496:
494:
490:
489:
484:
480:
473:
470:
469:
468:
466:
462:
461:
456:
449:
445:
442:
437:
434:
431:
430:
429:
427:
422:
420:
415:
411:
406:
403:
399:
398:
393:
386:
383:
381:
378:
377:
372:
368:
367:
361:
357:
356:
351:
347:
339:
336:
333:
332:
331:
329:
324:
321:
317:
316:
311:
308:
301:
298:
296:
294:
286:
284:
280:
278:
273:
261:
256:
254:
249:
247:
242:
241:
239:
238:
231:
227:
225:
223:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
195:
191:
190:
188:
187:
184:
180:
171:
170:
166:
164:
163:
159:
157:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
142:
137:
132:
130:
127:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
106:
105:
104:
101:
97:
94:
93:
90:
86:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
49:
48:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
21:
20:
2366:
2358:
2350:
2342:
2334:
2326:
2318:
2310:
2279:
2271:
2263:
2226:
2220:
2212:
2204:
2196:
2188:
2169:
2161:
2153:
2145:
2137:
2129:
2121:
2113:
2105:
2097:
2089:
2081:
2073:
2065:
2057:
2051:FEC v. Akins
2049:
2041:
2033:
2025:
2017:
2009:
2001:
1993:
1985:
1977:
1969:
1961:
1953:
1945:
1937:
1929:
1921:
1913:
1905:
1884:
1876:
1868:
1860:
1852:
1831:
1823:
1815:
1794:
1786:
1778:
1770:
1728:
1720:
1712:
1704:
1696:
1688:
1680:
1672:
1664:
1656:
1648:
1640:
1632:
1624:
1616:
1608:
1600:
1592:
1584:
1576:
1568:
1560:
1552:
1544:
1536:
1528:
1520:
1512:
1504:
1496:
1488:
1480:
1472:
1464:
1456:
1446:Jurisdiction
1419:
1411:
1403:
1395:
1387:
1379:
1371:
1363:
1355:
1347:
1339:
1331:
1323:
1315:
1307:
1299:
1291:
1283:
1275:
1267:
1259:
1251:
1243:
1235:
1227:
1219:
1211:
1203:
1195:
1187:
1179:
1171:
1145:
1137:
1129:
1108:
1100:
1092:
1084:
1076:
1068:
1047:
1039:
1031:
1023:
1015:
1006:Adequate and
992:
984:
976:
968:
960:
952:
944:
936:
928:
856:. Retrieved
844:
835:
824:. Retrieved
812:
803:
794:
785:
777:
773:
765:
761:
752:
744:
740:
732:
728:
715:
705:
701:
665:
663:
655:
644:
634:jurisdiction
626:
623:
617:
616:Note on the
601:
599:
595:
570:
555:
552:
543:
539:
537:
526:
522:
520:
514:
510:Abstention.
507:
503:
499:
497:
486:
482:
478:
477:
464:
458:
454:
453:
447:
443:
428:abstention:
425:
423:
402:civil rights
395:
391:
390:
384:
376:res judicata
374:
370:
364:
359:
353:
350:jurisdiction
345:
343:
327:
325:
313:
306:
305:
299:
290:
281:
271:
269:
221:
200:
193:
169:Quasi in rem
167:
160:
153:
124:Supplemental
89:Jurisdiction
903:Article III
155:In personam
2389:Categories
929:Abstention
917:Federalism
858:2021-06-24
826:2021-06-24
693:References
645:certiorari
517:abstention
450:abstention
387:abstention
310:abstention
302:abstention
216:Abrogation
201:Abstention
183:Federalism
853:0190-8286
821:0190-8286
508:Thibodaux
483:Thibodaux
448:Thibodaux
114:Diversity
38:doctrines
1898:Standing
1845:Ripeness
1763:Mootness
905:case law
710:oyez.org
676:See also
643:writ of
629:doctrine
620:doctrine
575:in 1983)
277:lawsuits
224:doctrine
196:doctrine
145:Personal
69:Mootness
64:Ripeness
59:Standing
2253:Treason
540:Pullman
504:Burford
479:Burford
465:Burford
455:Burford
444:Burford
426:Younger
392:Younger
385:Younger
371:resolve
346:Pullman
328:Pullman
307:Pullman
300:Pullman
129:Removal
2371:(2016)
2363:(2011)
2355:(2001)
2347:(1991)
2339:(1989)
2331:(1988)
2323:(1824)
2315:(1803)
2301:Others
2284:(1945)
2276:(1807)
2268:(1807)
2231:(2019)
2217:(2004)
2209:(1986)
2201:(1985)
2193:(1792)
2182:Others
2174:(2024)
2166:(2024)
2158:(2023)
2150:(2021)
2142:(2021)
2134:(2020)
2126:(2020)
2118:(2016)
2110:(2013)
2102:(2011)
2094:(2011)
2086:(2007)
2078:(2007)
2070:(2006)
2062:(2000)
2054:(1998)
2046:(1997)
2038:(1992)
2030:(1986)
2022:(1984)
2014:(1983)
2006:(1982)
1998:(1978)
1990:(1977)
1982:(1975)
1974:(1974)
1966:(1973)
1958:(1972)
1950:(1968)
1942:(1943)
1934:(1937)
1926:(1923)
1918:(1922)
1910:(1805)
1889:(2020)
1881:(1985)
1873:(1972)
1865:(1967)
1857:(1961)
1836:(1993)
1828:(1979)
1820:(1962)
1799:(2023)
1791:(2021)
1783:(2016)
1775:(1974)
1733:(2018)
1725:(2007)
1717:(2005)
1709:(2002)
1701:(1995)
1693:(1986)
1685:(1986)
1677:(1985)
1669:(1982)
1661:(1977)
1653:(1976)
1645:(1974)
1637:(1962)
1629:(1946)
1621:(1932)
1613:(1929)
1605:(1926)
1597:(1921)
1589:(1916)
1581:(1911)
1573:(1908)
1565:(1906)
1557:(1905)
1549:(1898)
1541:(1885)
1533:(1871)
1525:(1869)
1517:(1864)
1509:(1862)
1501:(1850)
1493:(1828)
1485:(1816)
1477:(1805)
1469:(1803)
1461:(1793)
1424:(2024)
1416:(2020)
1408:(2019)
1400:(2019)
1392:(2015)
1384:(2014)
1376:(2012)
1368:(2010)
1360:(2008)
1352:(2007)
1344:(2006)
1336:(2005)
1328:(2004)
1320:(2003)
1312:(2003)
1304:(2001)
1296:(1999)
1288:(1998)
1280:(1997)
1272:(1993)
1264:(1991)
1256:(1987)
1248:(1982)
1240:(1978)
1232:(1964)
1224:(1951)
1216:(1950)
1208:(1894)
1200:(1882)
1192:(1867)
1184:(1812)
1176:(1804)
1150:(2005)
1142:(1983)
1134:(1923)
1113:(1943)
1105:(1938)
1097:(1938)
1089:(1928)
1081:(1842)
1073:(1812)
1052:(1983)
1044:(1959)
1036:(1935)
1028:(1896)
1020:(1875)
997:(1983)
989:(1976)
981:(1971)
973:(1964)
965:(1962)
957:(1959)
949:(1943)
941:(1941)
851:
819:
641:via a
606:Kosher
548:comity
502:apply
360:inform
344:Under
162:In rem
610:Halal
849:ISSN
817:ISSN
719:See
624:The
521:The
405:tort
326:For
194:Erie
1161:and
608:or
506:or
500:not
270:An
2391::
2225:/
847:.
843:.
815:.
811:.
892:e
885:t
878:v
861:.
829:.
259:e
252:t
245:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
