Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

A federal court may abstain from granting an injunction or declaratory judgment and remand the parties to state court for an interpretation of a statute or an injunction. This is usually done if there is an ambiguity that the state court may be able to clarify to avoid the constitutional issue. It is not done if the issue regards free speech or where further delays are unjustifiable. This is a discretionary doctrine that allows a federal court to avoid needless conflicts with a State. 

'The various types of abstention are not rigid pigeonholes' but instead 'reflect a complex of considerations designed to soften the tensions inherent' in a dual state-federal system of justice. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 11 n.9, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519 (1987). 

There is both a civil and criminal doctrine. The criminal abstention doctrine established by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971), requires the target of an ongoing state prosecution to raise any and all constitutional claims as defenses to that action and prevents the state court defendant from filing a collateral ...

Register or login to access full content