holding that a federal action was properly stayed, pending the outcome of parallel state proceedings, where the action involved a matter of state policy—the scope of eminent domain powers of municipalities under state law
How later courts described this case
- holding that a federal action was properly stayed, pending the outcome of parallel state proceedings, where the action involved a matter of state policy—the scope of eminent domain powers of municipalities under state law
- discussing the need for abstention in a case about a state proceeding of a “special and peculiar nature” that involved an “aspect of sovereignty,” given the need to avoid “needless friction between state and federal authorities”
- recognizing "the wisdom of staying actions in the federal courts pending determination by a state court of decisive issues of state law” and affirming abstention pending decision by state court
- ordering abstention so that state court could have an opportunity to construe the state condemnation statute in question
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Stewart,
concurring.
In a conscientious effort to do justice the District Court deferred immediate adjudication of this controversy pending authoritative • clarification of a controlling state statute of highly doubtful meaning. Under the circumstances presented, I think the course pursued was clearly within the District Court’s allowable discretion. For that reason' I concur in the judgment:
This case is totally unlike County of Allegheny v. Mashuda Co., decided today, post, p. 185, except for the coincidence that both cases involve eminent domain proceedings. In Mashuda the.-Court holds that it was error for the District Court to dismiss the complaint. The Court further holds in that case that, since the controlling state law. is clear and oníy factual issues need be resolved, there is no occasion in the interest of justice to refrain from prompt adjudication.