# England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 13, 1964 · 375 U.S. 411

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422714

## Case

- **Full name:** ENGLAND Et Al. v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 13, 1964
- **Citations:** 375 U.S. 411; 84 S. Ct. 461; 11 L. Ed. 2d 440; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2264
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Black
- **Judges:** Brennan, Douglas, Black
- **Cited by:** 1,054 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by R&j Holding Co v. The Redevelopment Authority Of, 670 F.3d 420 (2011).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 6
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422714

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a party may inform the state courts-that he or she is exposing the federal claims there only .for the purpose of complying with Government and Civic Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U.S. 364, 77 S.Ct. 838, 1 L.Ed.2d 894 (1957), and that he or sh…
- recognizing the “fundamental objections to any conclusion that a litigant who has properly invoked the jurisdiction of a Federal District Court to consider federal constitutional claims can be compelled, without his consent and through no fault of his own, to accept instead a …
- explaining that in the context of federal abstention the U.S. Supreme Court has “on several occasions explicitly recognized that abstention ‘does not, of course, involve the abdication of federal jurisdiction, but only the postponement of its exercise’ ”
- holding that a party may inform the state court “that he intends, should the state court! 1 hold against him on the question of state law, to return to [federal] District Court for disposition of his federal contentions.”
- holding that a party may inform the state court "that he intends, should the state court[] hold against him on the question of state law, to return to [federal] District Court for disposition of his federal contentions."

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Black,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the judgment and in the opinion insofar as the Court holds that the District Court erred in the reasons it gave for dismissing appellants’ action. I am of the opinion, however, that the dismissal should be affirmed on the grounds relied upon by Judge J. Skelly Wright sitting alone in the District Court when the action first was brought: that the complaint failed to state a substantial federal question warranting exercise of jurisdiction. See Hitchcock v. Collenberg, 140 F. Supp. 894 (D. C. D. Md.), aff’d, 353 U. S. 919 ; cf. Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30 . Compare Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Fife, 162 La. 681 , 111 So. 58 , aff’d, 274 U. S. 720 ; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 . See also Judge Wisdom’s opinions dissenting from reversal of Judge Wright’s ruling, 259 F. 2d 626, 627 (C. A. 5th Cir.), and 263 F. 2d 661, 674 (C. A. 5th Cir.). Although a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Fifth Circuit was denied, 359 U. S. 1012 , issues raised at that stage of the litigation which remain dispositive of the case are properly before us. Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422714. Public record. Not legal advice.