(1976) (evidence of racially motivated police brutality) Rizzo v. Goode Suit dismissed on justiciability grounds (too conjectural about what a small group of police might do in the future) Rehnquist suggested an extension of Younger as a possible limit on federal review of state and local executive action Lower courts read this to indicate proceed with caution when dealing with important state and local government activities (which would likely include law enforcement) § 13.4 Exceptions to the Doctrine Younger federal courts may enjoin pending state court proceedings “extraordinary circumstances”’ bad faith prosecutions patently unconstitutional laws unavailability of an adequate state forum waiver (i.e. be raised by court; must be raised by parties) can’t Chapter 14 Federal Court Abstention to Avoid Duplicative Litigation Facts giving rise to issue: - A party sued in state court might react by filing suit “reactive suits” over same subject matter in federal court (or reverse); the party might perceive an advantage in one forum over the other Make sure same parties same issues. and it’s § 14.2 When Should Federal Courts Abstain Because of Duplicative Litigation in State Courts? Real property exception - first court with jurisdiction decides This is the one firmly entrenched exception to the rule No preclusion of concurrent jurisdiction in other areas Federal courts generally need not abstain to avoid duplicative litigation However, (1942) Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. Abstention was appropriate where federal court was convinced that the controversy would be settled by the state court proceeding (1976) (NOT AN ABSTENTION Colo. River Water Conservation District v. United States CASE) Rule: There are exceptional/extraordinary circumstances when a federal court should (for reasons of judicial administration) surrender jurisdiction “wise” Exceptional Circumstances Test Inconvenience of federal forum (location) Desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation: Piecemeal litigation will exist if ct wants only to hear fed’l fed’l claims. If litigation is merely duplicative, no problems with this prong. Order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums (Moses altered this to much progress has been made in the two Cone “how actions”)
Rizzo v. Goode (1976) (evidence of racially motivated police brutality) Suit dismissed on justiciability grounds (too conjectural about what a small group of police might do in the future) Rehnquist suggested an extension of Younger as a possible limit on federal review of state and local executive action Lower courts read this to indicate proceed with caution when dealing with important state and local government activities (which would likely include law enforcement) § 13.4 Exceptions to the Younger Doctrine “extraordinary circumstances”’ federal courts may enjoin pending state court proceedings bad faith prosecutions patently unconstitutional laws unavailability of an adequate state forum waiver (i.e. can’t be raised by court; must be raised by parties) Chapter 14 Federal Court Abstention to Avoid Duplicative Litigation Facts giving rise to issue: “reactive suits” - A party sued in state court might react by filing suit over same subject matter in federal court (or reverse); the party might perceive an advantage in one forum over the other Make sure it’s same parties and same issues. § 14.2 When Should Federal Courts Abstain Because of Duplicative Litigation in State Courts? Real property exception - first court with jurisdiction decides This is the one firmly entrenched exception to the rule No preclusion of concurrent jurisdiction in other areas Federal courts generally need not abstain to avoid duplicative litigation However, Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. (1942) Abstention was appropriate where federal court was convinced that the controversy would be settled by the state court proceeding Colo. River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976) (NOT AN ABSTENTION CASE) Rule: There are exceptional/extraordinary circumstances when a federal court should (for reasons of “wise” judicial administration) surrender jurisdiction Exceptional Circumstances Test Inconvenience of federal forum (location) Desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation: Piecemeal litigation will exist if fed’l ct wants only to hear fed’l claims. If litigation is merely duplicative, no problems with this prong. Order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums (Moses Cone altered this to “how much progress has been made in the two actions”)
Fed-Jur-Keyed-to-Chemerinsky-5th-ed.docx