green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.7 score
“for that reason, we have held that a dismissal on grounds of abstention so as to permit a state court to pass on an issue of state law must not be with prejudice.”
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Canfield v. Wisconsin Board of Attorneys Professional Competence
(3×)
But see American Trial Lawyers Ass’n. v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1967) (in which abstention was ordered, implying the presence of jurisdiction) and Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 359 F.Supp. 549 (E.D.Va. 1973), aff’d mem., 414 U.S. 1034 , 94 S.Ct. 533 , 38 L.Ed.2d 327 (1973) (in which the merits of the controversy were addressed, implying the presence of jurisdiction).
examined
Cited "but see"
Surowitz v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
(3×)
But see American Trial Lawyers Assn. v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Preston Hollow Capital LLC v. Nuveen LLC
for that reason, we have held that a dismissal on grounds of abstention so as to permit a state court to pass on an issue of state law must not be with prejudice.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nivens v. Gilchrist
The proper course is for the District Court to retain jurisdiction pending the proceedings in the state courts." Id. at 469 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Linick v. District Court of State of Or. for County of Lane
See American Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 468 (1973) (per curiam) (agreeing that a dispute between a state court " 'and those persons authorized by that court to practice law in the state ... is an extremely delicate one' ").
discussed
Cited "see"
Pustell v. Lynn Public
See American Trial Lawyers ___ ________________________ Association v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 469 ___________ __________________________ (1973).7 We therefore vacate the decision of the district court, and _________________________________________________________________ remand for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
examined
Cited "see"
Pustell v. Lynn Public Schools
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Association v. *55 New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973). 7 We therefore vacate the decision of the district court, and remand for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
examined
Cited "see"
Komutanon v. Coler
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Association v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973).
examined
Cited "see"
Record Club of America, Inc. v. Credit Services., Inc.
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Ct, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam) (district court erred in denying motion to amend judgment of dismissal based on ground of abstention to make it clear that no prejudice would attach to the dismissal); Dema v. Illinois, 546 F.2d 224, 226 (7th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (rejecting assertion that district court’s dismissal, based on abstention principle, was made on the merits); Restatement of Judgments § 49 comment a (1942) (plaintiffs cause of action not extinguished by judgment dismissing acti…
examined
Cited "see"
Catlin v. Ambach
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Association v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam); England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 421-22 , 84 S.Ct. 461, 467-68 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964) (procedure for reserving right to litigate federal question in federal court).
examined
Cited "see"
Catlin v. Ambach
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Association v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam); England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 421-22 , 84 S.Ct. 461, 467-68 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964) (procedure for reserving right to litigate federal question in federal court).
examined
Cited "see"
American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Webb
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973).
examined
Cited "see"
Burke Justice, Jr. v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(6×)
Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman, supra note 15, 312 U.S. at 501-502 , 61 S.Ct. at 645-646 , 85 L.Ed. at 975 ; see American Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651, 653 (1973); Lake Carriers’ Ass'n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 512-513 , 92 S.Ct. 1749, 1758 , 32 L.Ed.2d 257, 270 (1972); Harrison v. NAACP, supra note 16, 360 U.S. at 173 , 79 S.Ct. at 1033 , 3 L.Ed.2d at 1158 (Pullman -type abstention “does not ... involve the abdication of federal jurisdiction, but only the postponement of its exercise”); Coleman v. Ginsberg, 428 F…
examined
Cited "see"
T. J. Fountain, Jr., Individually and Doing Business as Fountain Oil Company v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(3×)
See Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 244 n.4, 88 S.Ct. 391 , 393 n.4, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967) (once a federal constitutional issue has been raised and abstention doctrine invoked, “it is *1047 better practice ... to retain jurisdiction, rather than to dismiss”); accord, American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 30-31 , 79 S.Ct. 1070, 1073-74 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1959); Creel v. City of Atlanta, 399 F.2d 777, 779 (5th Cir. 1968); Cox v. Pla…
examined
Cited "see"
Peterson v. Sheran
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, supra, 409 U.S. at 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 ; Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 , 61 S.Ct. 643 , 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941) (hereinafter Pullman ); Warren v. Government National Mortgage Ass'n, 443 F.2d 624 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 886 , 92 S.Ct. 220 , 30 L.Ed.2d 169 (1971). 9 Appellant argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court was biased against him and that he would not receive a real opportunity to raise his claims before that court.
examined
Cited "see"
Peterson v. Sheran
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, supra, 409 U.S. at 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627, 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 ; Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 , 61 S.Ct. 643 , 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941) (hereinafter Pullman); Warren v. Government National Mortgage Ass’n, 443 F.2d 624 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 886 , 92 S.Ct. 220 , 30 L.Ed.2d 169 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
Dale Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., and Charles \Booby\" Clark"
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Association v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973).
examined
Cited "see"
New Jersey Education Association v. Fred G. Burke
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (trial court's dismissal on Pullman grounds reversed; Supreme Court held that "proper course" is to retain jurisdiction).
examined
Cited "see"
New Jersey Education Ass'n v. Burke
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (trial court’s dismissal on Pullman grounds reversed; Supreme Court held that “proper course” is to retain jurisdiction).
examined
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Association v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 244 n. 4, 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967); Farley v. Farley, 481 F.2d 1009 (3d Cir. 1973). *1382 In the instant case, whether Nelson had a property interest in his job depends upon state law.
examined
Cited "see"
Blount v. Mandel
(3×)
See Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Sup. Ct., 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (dismissal nevertheless allowed); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 244 n. 4, 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967); Doud v. Hodge, 350 U.S. 485 , 76 S.Ct. 491 , 100 L.Ed. 577 (1956).
examined
Cited "see"
Edward Luedtke v. County of Milwaukee
(3×)
Accord, American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973);.
examined
Cited "see"
Lecci v. Cahn
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see"
Lecci v. Cahn
(3×)
See American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see"
Alcala v. Wyoming State Board of Barber Examiners
(6×)
See American Trial Lawyers Assn., New Jersey Branch v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467, 469 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
(HC) Ortiz v. Fresno Federal Courthouse
Appx. 192 , 193 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of a petition 19 without prejudice where the claims in the petition implicated civil rights violations); see also 20 American Trial Lawyers Assoc., New Jersey Branch v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 21 469 (1973) (a dismissal on grounds of abstention “must not be with prejudice”); Orth v. Johnson, 22 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4179 , at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) (finding the district court erred in 23 dismissal without prejudice of a petition brought by a pretrial detainee where the state criminal 24 proceedings were ongoing and h…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr.
Compare American Trial Lawyers Assn. v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 (1973) (stays appropriate in Pullman cases), with Harris County Commissioners Court v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77, 88-89 , and n. 14 (1975) (dismissal permissible to accommodate Texas jurisdictional requirements).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryant v. New Jersey Department of Transportation
(3×)
See Belair v. Lombardi 151 F.R.D. 698, 699 (M.D.Fla. 1993) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment is permissible in cases, as the one now before the Court, which have been resolved through an order of dismissal.”); see also American Trial Lawyers Association New Jersey Branch v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (reversing denial of Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment of dismissal); Welch v. Folsom, 925 F.2d 666 (3d Cir.1991) (finding that Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration of order dismissing complaint was timely filed). 2 A district court m…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
(2×)
Compare American Trial Lawyers Assn. v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U. S. 467 (1973) (stays appropriate in Pullman cases), with Harris County Commissioners Court v. Moore, 420 U. S. 77, 88-89 , and n. 14 (1975) (dismissal permissible to accommodate Texas jurisdictional requirements).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Roque v. City of Redlands
(3×)
See, e. g., American Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. Cryan
(6×)
Compare American Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 467 , 93 S.Ct. 627 , 34 L.Ed.2d 651 (1973) (per curiam). [1a] 312 U.S. 496 , 61 S.Ct. 643 , 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). [2a] See e. g.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMERICAN TRIAL LAWYERS ASSN., NEW JERSEY BRANCH, Et Al.
v.
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
v.
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
72-691.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 15, 1973.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 88 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
On December 21, 1971, the Supreme Court of New Jersey announced the adoption of Rule 1:21-7, effective January 31, 1972, establishing a graduated schedule of maximum contingent fees applicable to tort litigation conducted by New Jersey attorneys. [1] Appellants, representing members of the New Jersey bar, brought this action to enjoin the enforcement of the rules on the grounds that they violate several provisions of the Constitution, including the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial[*468] judge convened a three-judge court. 28 U. S. C. § 2281. [2]
After hearing argument on the merits, the District Court pointed out that:
“ [Essentially the case poses a dispute between a state’s highest court and those persons authorized by that court to practice law in the state. The relationship between the parties thus is an extremely delicate one. Under such circumstances federal courts generally have considered it appropriate, before attempting any direct federal intervention at the outset, first to permit the state courts to process the dispute. Cf. Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, 85-87 (1970).”
The court added that “[a]s was true in Reetz the initial issue is whether the state constitution authorized the enactment challenged.” The court therefore granted defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss.
By timely motion under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 59 (e), appellants sought an order amending the judgment by either
“(A) Retaining jurisdiction, but staying proceedings in this Court pending determination of the issues of state law in the courts of New Jersey, or until efforts to obtain such a determination have been exhausted; or
“(B) Ordering that the dismissal be without prejudice, so that the suits for determination of the[*469] federal constitutional issues may be reinstituted after exhausting state recourse with respect to state law issues.” Jurisdictional Statement 10.
The motion was denied and appellants brought this appeal. [3]
“[AJbstention 'does not, of course, involve the abdication of federal jurisdiction, but only the postponement of its exercise.’ ” England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 416 (1964), quoting from Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 177 (1959). For that reason, we have held that a dismissal on grounds of abstention so as to permit a state court to pass on an issue of state law must not be with prejudice. Doud v. Hodge, 350 U. S. 485 (1956); Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498 (1972). The proper course is for the District Court to retain jurisdiction pending the proceedings in the state courts. Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, supra, at 512-513; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 244-245, n. 4 (1967). [4] Although the District Court may have intended its judgment of dismissal to be without prejudice to the right of appellants to litigate their federal claims in federal court at the conclusion of the state proceeding, the court did deny appellants’ motion for an amendment to the judgment making clear that no prejudice would attach. The motion should have been granted. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
1
Rule 1:21-7 provides in part:
“(c) In any matter where, a client’s claim for damages is based upon the alleged tortious conduct of another, including products liability claims, and the client is not a subrogee, an attorney shall not contract for, charge, or collect a contingent fee in excess of the following limits:
“(1) 50% on the first $1000 recovered;
“(2) 40% on the next $2000 recovered;
“(3) 33%% on the next $47,000 recovered;
“(4) 20% on the next $50,000 recovered;
“(5) 10% on any amount recovered over $100,000 . . . .”
2
Appellee maintained below, as it maintains before this Court, that a three-judge court need not have been convened because the constitutional question presented is insubstantial. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962). It insists, however, that if the claim is substantial then it must be heard by a court of three judges, 28 U. S. C. § 2281. In view of the posture of the case on this appeal, we do not, of course, express any view on the merits of the question presented.
3
The validity of the District Court’s decision to abstain is not at issue on this appeal.
4
“It is better practice, in a case raising a federal constitutional or statutory claim [where the doctrine of abstention is applied], to retain jurisdiction, rather than to dismiss . . . .” Zwickler, supra, at 244 n. 4.