Abell v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.2d 653 · 1980
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Zwickler v. Koota · County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The prerequisites for Pullman abstention are (1) there must be an unsettled issue of state law; and (2) there must be a possibility that the state law determination will moot or present in a different posture the federal constitutional questions raised.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, a U.S. district court that abstains from reaching federal constitutional issues under Pullman will ... stay the federal issues pending determination of the state law questions in state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Pullman abstention is appropriate 'in cases presenting a federal constitutional issue which might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state court determination of pertinent state law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.