-
656 F.2d 933·
4th Cir.·
1981-08-12
·cited 45×
The dissenting judges would hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awaiting action from the state court.
-
844 F.2d 1185·
5th Cir.·
1988-05-17
·cited 27×
A federal court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurer seeking to determine coverage, even if parallel state court actions exist, unless exceptional circumstances clearly warrant dismissal.
-
743 F.2d 1519·
11th Cir.·
1984-10-11
·cited 27×
A district court's stay order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 if it effectively places the appellant out of court due to indefinite delay, even if the state action for which the stay was granted will not resolve the federal claims.
-
751 F.2d 475·
1st Cir.·
1985-01-11
·cited 23×
The court held that the district court correctly exercised its discretion in staying proceedings pending the outcome of a related state court action, finding exceptional circumstances to justify the stay.
-
733 F.2d 1047·
2d Cir.·
1984-05-04
·cited 23×
The district court erred in abstaining from exercising diversity jurisdiction over a claim for rescission of an assignment procured by fraud and undue influence, as the claim did not fall within the probate exception and did not present exceptional circumstances warranting absten
-
739 F.2d 929·
3d Cir.·
1984-07-20
·cited 12×
Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to reopen private lawsuits brought and settled in state courts, even if based on federal law, for alleged violations of federal statutes in the settlement process.
-
727 F.2d 1033·
11th Cir.·
1984-03-19
·cited 11×
The district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from hearing the § 1983 claim pending resolution of state court proceedings.
-
798 F.2d 8·
1st Cir.·
1986-08-11
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court properly stayed Amtrak's declaratory relief action pending the outcome of a state condemnation proceeding because the issues were identical and staying the federal action avoided piecemeal litigation.
-
777 F.2d 792·
1st Cir.·
1985-11-20
·cited 10×
The court held that the Nevada Supreme Court's judgment, which barred the plaintiff's claim against the estate, was res judicata and entitled to full faith and credit, precluding federal review of the constitutional claims. However, the Nevada judgment did not preclude claims aga
-
917 F.2d 1144·
8th Cir.·
1990-11-01
·cited 7×
The court held that under Missouri law, an insurance policy's household exclusion clause barred a claim for medical expenses for an injured insured, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a declaratory jud
-
28 F. Supp. 2d 651·
M.D. Fla.·
1998-10-29
·cited 2×
The court held that exceptional circumstances justifying dismissal or stay of the federal action in favor of a parallel state court proceeding were not present.
-
965 F.2d 534·
7th Cir.·
1992-06-22
·cited 2×
The Illinois statute of limitations for medical negligence actions is tolled by an appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court of an order of voluntary dismissal, allowing plaintiffs to refile within the grace period.
-
906 F. Supp. 652·
S.D. Fla.·
1995-11-22
The court held that abstention was warranted due to the existence of parallel state court proceedings involving identical facts and nearly identical antitrust claims, despite the federal court's exclusive jurisdiction over the federal antitrust claim.
-
976 F.2d 587·
9th Cir.·
1992-10-05
The court held that the district court properly stayed federal proceedings in favor of parallel state court litigation because the state court first obtained jurisdiction over the property.