Pullman Abstention
From Conservapedia Pullman abstention doctrine states that "a federal district court is vested with discretion to decline to exercise or to postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction in deference to state court resolution of underlying issues of state law." Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 534 (1965) (citing Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941)).
| “ | Two criteria have been established for application of the Pullman doctrine: (1) the case presents an unsettled question of state law, and (2) the question of state law is dispositive of the case or would avoid, or substantially modify, the constitutional question presented. Duke v. James, 713 F.2d 1506, 1510 (11th Cir.1983). If a case presents such an issue, it is incumbent on the court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to abstain. Duke, 713 F.2d at 1510. Because it is "severely circumscribed to constitutional challenges posing 'special circumstances,' . . . [Pullman abstention] is therefore the exception rather than the rule." High Ol' Times, 621 F.2d at 139 (quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248, 88 S. Ct. 391, 395, 19 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1967)). | ” |
Rindley v. Gallagher, 929 F.2d 1552, 1554-55 (11th Cir. 1991).
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 02/24/2023 08:59:00 | 7 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/Pullman_abstention | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
ZWI signed:
ZWI viewer
by the 
KSF
KSF