Abstention - Revision history

Admin at 19:46, 6 July 2018

2018-07-06T19:46:41Z

Morgannoel18 at 07:23, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T07:23:41Z

Nicole at 16:22, 20 January 2017

2017-01-20T16:22:07Z

Nicole at 16:21, 20 January 2017

2017-01-20T16:21:33Z

Nicole: Created page with "'''Abstention''' “Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a fe..."

2017-01-19T16:17:35Z

Created page with "'''Abstention''' “Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a fe..."

New page

'''Abstention''' “Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a federal court may abstain from deciding a case otherwise properly before it when a constitutional issue may be affected by an unsettled interpretation of state law. This application of abstention is really a deferral of federal jurisdiction based upon the premise that the federal courts should not prematurely resolve the constitutionality of a state statute. The second application, following the deferral approach to abstention, relates to when a federal court should defer exercising its jurisdiction where a state court has previously initiated a judicial proceeding. In such a case, the state proceeding should be al- lowed to conclude as both a matter of “our federalism” and comity. Hence, both of the preceding concepts of the doctrine of abstention seek to both promote comity between the federal and state systems in the United States and respect the spheres of judicial influences of both the federal and state judicial systems. SEE ALSO: ''[[Comity]]''; [[''Michigan v. Long'']]; [[''New Judicial Federalism'']]; [[''Younger v. Harris'']]

=====See also=====
*[[Comity]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 6 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	“Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a federal court may abstain from deciding a case otherwise properly before it when a constitutional issue may be affected by an unsettled interpretation of state law. This application of abstention is really a deferral of federal jurisdiction based upon the premise that the federal courts should not prematurely resolve the constitutionality of a state statute. The second application, following the deferral approach to abstention, relates to when a federal court should defer exercising its jurisdiction where a state court has previously initiated a judicial proceeding. In such a case, the state proceeding should be allowed to conclude as both a matter of “our ~~federalism”~~ and comity. Hence, both of the preceding concepts of the doctrine of abstention seek to both promote comity between the federal and state systems in the United States and respect the spheres of judicial influences of both the federal and state judicial systems.	+	“Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a federal court may abstain from deciding a case otherwise properly before it when a constitutional issue may be affected by an unsettled interpretation of state law. This application of abstention is really a deferral of federal jurisdiction based upon the premise that the federal courts should not prematurely resolve the constitutionality of a state statute. The second application, following the deferral approach to abstention, relates to when a federal court should defer exercising its jurisdiction where a state court has previously initiated a judicial proceeding. In such a case, the state proceeding should be allowed to conclude as both a matter of “our [[federalism]]” and comity. Hence, both of the preceding concepts of the doctrine of abstention seek to both promote comity between the federal and state systems in the United States and respect the spheres of judicial influences of both the federal and state judicial systems.

	==== Charles D. Cole ====		==== Charles D. Cole ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:23, 22 October 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==== Charles D. Cole ====		==== Charles D. Cole ====
		+
		+	Last updated: 2006

	SEE ALSO: [[Comity]]; [[Michigan v. Long]]; [[New Judicial Federalism]]; [[Younger v. Harris]]		SEE ALSO: [[Comity]]; [[Michigan v. Long]]; [[New Judicial Federalism]]; [[Younger v. Harris]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 20 January 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==== Charles D. Cole ====		==== Charles D. Cole ====

−	SEE ALSO: [[Comity]]; [[''Michigan v. Long'']]; [[New Judicial Federalism]]; [[''Younger v. Harris'']]	+	SEE ALSO: [[Comity]]; [[Michigan v. Long]]; [[New Judicial Federalism]]; [[Younger v. Harris]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Abstention'''   “Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a federal court may abstain from deciding a case otherwise properly before it when a constitutional issue may be affected by an unsettled interpretation of state law. This application of abstention is really a deferral of federal jurisdiction based upon the premise that the federal courts should not prematurely resolve the constitutionality of a state statute. The second application, following the deferral approach to abstention, relates to when a federal court should defer exercising its jurisdiction where a state court has previously initiated a judicial proceeding. In such a case, the state proceeding should be al- lowed to conclude as both a matter of “our federalism” and comity. Hence, both of the preceding concepts of the doctrine of abstention seek to both promote comity between the federal and state systems in the United States and respect the spheres of judicial influences of both the federal and state judicial systems. SEE ALSO: ''[[Comity]]''; [[''Michigan v. Long'']]; [[''New Judicial Federalism'']]; [[''Younger v. Harris'']]
+“Abstention” in the American legal culture occurs when a federal court abstains from exercising jurisdiction in either of two circumstances. First, a federal court may abstain from deciding a case otherwise properly before it when a constitutional issue may be affected by an unsettled interpretation of state law. This application of abstention is really a deferral of federal jurisdiction based upon the premise that the federal courts should not prematurely resolve the constitutionality of a state statute. The second application, following the deferral approach to abstention, relates to when a federal court should defer exercising its jurisdiction where a state court has previously initiated a judicial proceeding. In such a case, the state proceeding should be allowed to conclude as both a matter of “our federalism” and comity. Hence, both of the preceding concepts of the doctrine of abstention seek to both promote comity between the federal and state systems in the United States and respect the spheres of judicial influences of both the federal and state judicial systems.
-=====See also=====
+==== Charles D. Cole ====
-*[[Comity]]