Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBirdsong, Leonarden_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-18T15:49:18Z
dc.date.available2013-02-18T15:49:18Z
dc.date.issued2003en_US
dc.identifier.citation36 Creighton L. Rev. 375 (2002-2003)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40454
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|In the United States we are blessed-or cursed-with a legal system that contemplates parallel judicial processes. We have a federal court system and each state has a separate state court system. "Since 1941 there has been considerable recognition of circumstances under which a federal court may decline to proceed though it has jurisdiction under the Constitution and federal statutes." "The cases in which this has been recognized are usually referred to as "the abstention doctrine." "The abstention doctrine prohibits a federal court from deciding a case within its jurisdiction so that a state court can resolve some or all of the dispute." The purpose of such doctrine is to "preserve the balance between state and federal sovereignty." "This constitutional balance is 'often' referred to as federalism or comity." Scholars have come to refer to not one, but a number of various types of cases which reflect various notions of comity for purposes of abstention. In practice it is more precise to refer to the "abstention doctrines." These abstention doctrines cases reflect complex considerations designed to avoid friction between federal and state courts...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleComity and our Federalism in the Twenty-First Century: The Abstention Doctrines Will Always be with Us - Get over Iten_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume36en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2002-2003en_US
dc.description.pages375en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record