stating that an "actual controversy" under the Declaratory Judgment Act exists when " 'there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment' "
How later courts described this case
- stating that an "actual controversy" under the Declaratory Judgment Act exists when " 'there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment' "
- holding that the district court should have abstained pursuant to Pullman in order to allow the state courts to resolve ambiguities in the state law that were sufficiently likely to modify the federal questions, including preemption, raised by the appellants
- holding that ancillary claims are properly before three-judge district court “so long as there is a nonfrivolous constitutional claim that constitutes a justiciable controversy”
- determining that the mere obligation to install sewage storage devices placed upon the challenging party under a Michigan statute, even without threat of enforcement, created a live controversy for purposes of justiciability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins, concurring in the result.
I agree that the complaint presents an actual controversy and that the District Court properly abstained. I therefore concur in the result and join the judgment of the Court.