Cluster 359509

Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Co-op., 583 F.2d 104, 112 (3d Cir. 1978) (same when suit “entails no interference with” regulatory agency or state court).

See also Federman v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 597 F.2d 798, 808 , and n. 15 (CA2 1979); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108-109 (CA3 1978); Sun Oil Co. v. FEA, 572 F.2d 867 (Temp.

Bank for Coops. v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir.1978), a Burford-type abstention case, we noted the contrast between the abstention order at issue there and a referral order issued pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 953 F.2d 1431, 1435 (3d Cir.1990) (citing Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir.1978)).

See id. at 340; Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Co-op., 583 F.2d 104, 112 (3d Cir.1978); Corwin Jeep Sales & Service, Inc. v. American Motors Sales Corp., 670 F.Supp. 591, 595 (M.D.Pa.1986).

Hosp. v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 8-10 & nn. 8, 11, 103 S.Ct. 927 , 933-34 & nn. 8, 11, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Richman Brothers Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 953 F.2d 1431 , 1442 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1230 , 112 S.Ct. 3056 , 120 L.Ed.2d 921 (1992); Hovsons, Inc. v. Secretary of the Interior, 711 F.2d 1208, 1211 (3d Cir.1983); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108-09 (3d Cir.1978).

Hosp. v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 8-10 & nn. 8, 11, 103 S.Ct. 927 , 933-34 & nn. 8, 11, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Rickman Brothers Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 953 F.2d 1431 , 1442 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1230 , 112 S.Ct. 3056 , 120 L.Ed.2d 921 (1992); Hovsons, Inc. v. Secretary of the Interior, 711 F.2d 1208 , 1211 (3d Cir.1983); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108-09 (3d Cir.1978).

Co., 51 F. 3d 141, 147 (CA8 1995) (same); but see Fragoso v. Lopez, 991 F. 2d 878, 882 (CA1 1993) (federal court can abstain under Burford only if it is "sitting in equity"); University of Maryland v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 923 F. 2d 265 , 272 (CA3 1991) (same); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmer's Cheese Cooperative, 583 F. 2d 104, 111 (CA3 1978) (same).

This action will be dismissed as "dismissal of the action, rather than retention of jurisdiction pending a state determination is normally appropriate." Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir.1978) (quotation omitted).

Baltimore Bank, 583 F.2d at 111 (citation omitted).

Baltimore Bank, 583 F.2d at 111 (citation omitted).

It was merely etching out a very limited exception for abstention in actions at law because of the peculiar nature of eminent domain cases and the unclear applicable state law. 21 Baltimore Bank, Etc. v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 111-12 (3d Cir.1978) (citations omitted).

Baltimore Bank, Etc. v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 111-12 (3d Cir.1978) (citations omitted).

See, e.g., United Servs., 792 F.2d at 365 (finding that district court erred in applying Burford to state regulation of insurance where the party urging abstention “has not suggested any peculiar local conditions or special expertise required to interpret the. [state] statute”); Baltimore Bank for Coops. v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 110 (3d Cir.1978) (district court erred in abstaining on basis of Burford where “[n]o special expertise or competence” of the agency i…

The district court, however, ... impermissibly extended abstention to a common law action. 49 Baltimore Bank, 583 F.2d at 111 (citation omitted).

See also McNeese v. Board of Education for Community School Dist. 187, 373 U.S. 668 , 673 n. 5, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 1436, n. 5 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir.1978).

Application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine is appropriate where jurisdiction for decision-making lies in both the judicial and administrative agency provinces, Cheyney State, supra, 703 F.2d at 736 ; there are issues of fact raised which are not within the conventional experience and expertise of the particular court, Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Corp., 583 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir.1978); Mountain View, supra, 99 B.R. at 559 ; and Robinson Truck, supr…

If this is so, then it would clearly be inappropriate to abstain, since the plaintiffs would then be deprived of a forum and of all recourse to have their claims heard on the merits. 11 See NOPSI, 109 S.Ct. at 2514 (Burford abstention can apply only "where timely and adequate state court review is available"); Baltimore Bank, 583 F.2d at 111 (reversing an abstention that would have required "preliminary resort to a forum which cannot afford relief"); Levy v. Lewis, 635 F.2d …

If this is so, then it would clearly be inappropriate to abstain, since the plaintiffs would then be deprived of a forum and of all recourse to have their claims heard on the merits. 11 See NOPSI, 109 S.Ct. at 2514 (Burford abstention can apply only “where timely and adequate state court review is available”); Baltimore Bank, 583 F.2d at 111 (reversing an abstention that would have required “preliminary resort to a forum which cannot afford relief”); Levy v. Lewis, 635 F.2d …

Because declaratory relief is not a common law action, and in light of the discussion in the text supra, our decision to apply the Burford doctrine to a case involving declaratory relief is not inconsistent with Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir.1978) ("Burford ... was an equitable action to restrain the Texas Railroad Commission[;] ... [t]raditionally, abstention has been applied only in cases involving equitable relief.

Because declaratory relief is not a common law action, and in light of the discussion in the text supra, our decision to apply the Burford doctrine to a case involving declaratory relief is not inconsistent with Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir.1978) ("B urford ... was an equitable action to restrain the Texas Railroad Commission!;] ... [traditionally, abstention has been applied only in cases involving equitable relief.

Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir.1978).

Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1978). .

Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1978) 2 In a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, individuals, partnerships, or corporations engaged in a similar line of business undertake to indemnify each other against a certain kind or kinds of losses by means of a mutual exchange of insurance contracts ... whereby each member separately becomes both an insured and an insurer with several liability only. 2 Couch on Insurance, Sec. 1…

See generally Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Township, 671 F.2d 743, 746 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 990 , 102 S.Ct. 2270 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1285 (1982); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108-09 (3d Cir.1978); Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, 465 F.2d 237, 241-44 (3d Cir.1972) (citing cases), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 943 , 93 S.Ct. 1367 , 35 L.Ed.2d 609 (1973).

See generally Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Township, 671 F.2d 743, 746 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 990 , 102 S.Ct. 2270 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1285 (1982); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108-09 (3d Cir.1978); Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, 465 F.2d 237, 241-44 (3d Cir.1972) (citing cases), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 943 , 93 S.Ct. 1367 , 35 L.Ed.2d 609 (1973).

See Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 , 63 S.Ct. 1098 , 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1978).

See Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 , 63 S.Ct. 1098 , 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1978).

Thus no “difficult question of state law,” Colorado River, supra, 424 U.S. at 814 , 96 S.Ct. at 1244 , is involved as in Louisiana Power, supra. See also Baltimore Bank v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 110 (3d Cir.1978) (abstention inappropriate where underlying commodity subject to complex regulations, but actual claim was simple breach of contract).

Cf. Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir.1978) (abstention decision appealable as “removing entirely from the original federal jurisdiction cases that fall within federal jurisdiction grants .... ”). 2 .

Co., 629 F.2d 757 , 761 n. 7 (2d Cir. 1980); Betar v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 603 F.2d 30, 35 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1098 , 100 S.Ct. 1064 , 62 L.Ed. 785 (1980); In re Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 596 F.2d 1239 , 1247 n. 17 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1045 , 100 S.Ct. 732 , 62 L.Ed.2d 731 (1980); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Co-op., 583 F.2d 104, 112 (3d Cir. 1978); Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710…

See also Federman v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 597 F. 2d 798, 808 , and n. 15 (CA2 1979); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F. 2d 104, 108-109 (CA3 1978); Sun Oil Co. v. FEA, 572 F. 2d 867 (Temp.

Doyle, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, is sitting by designation 1 See also Baltimore Bank For Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 109 (3d Cir. 1978) (stay of diversity action requiring parties to proceed before state agency was appealable as a final order); Hines v. D'Artois, 531 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1976) (stay of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 to require plaintiff to file a compl…

Id. at 109.

See McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 673 n. 5, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 1436 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 27 , 79 S.Ct. 1070, 1072 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1958); Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 236 , 64 S.Ct. 7, 11 , 88 L.Ed. 9 (1943); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir. 1978); Middle Atlantic Utilities Co. v. S.M.W.

See McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 673 n. 5, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 1436 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 27 , 79 S.Ct. 1070, 1072 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1958); Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 236 , 64 S.Ct. 7, 11 , 88 L.Ed. 9 (1943); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir. 1978); Middle Atlantic Utilities Co. v. S.M.W.

"Congress adopted the policy of opening the doors of the federal courts to all diversity cases involving the jurisdictional amount to assure suitors from a foreign state of an impartial and neutral forum." Baltimore Bank for Cooperative v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 112 (3d Cir. 1978).

“Congress adopted the policy of opening the doors of the federal courts to all diversity cases involving the jurisdictional amount to assure suitors from a foreign state of an impartial and neutral forum.” Baltimore Bank for Cooperative v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 112 (3d Cir. 1978).

See Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Co-op., 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3rd Cir.1978) ("The district court, however, ... impermissi-bly extended abstention to a common law action.”).

See id. at 107-08 (discussing Allied Air Freight, Inc. v. Pan Amer.

See id. at 107-08 (discussing Allied Air Freight, Inc. v. Pan Amer.

See Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 235 , 64 S.Ct. 7, 11 , 88 L.Ed. 9 (1943), cited with approval, Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104 , 111 n. 7 (3d Cir.1978).

See Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104 (C.A.3, 1978).

See Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir. 1978).

See Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir. 1978).

See Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. filed August 25, 1978).

See Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. filed August 25, 1978).

See also University of Md. v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 923 F.2d 265 , 272 (3d Cir.1991) (reaffirming the Third Circuit’s statement in Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Coop., 583 F.2d 104, 111 (3d Cir.1978), that traditionally, abstention is proper only in cases involving equitable relief, and trying to harmonize that statement with Lac D’Amiante du Quebec, Ltee. v. American Home Assurance Co., 864 F.2d 1033 , 1044-45 (3d Cir.1988), which permitted Burford ab…

See also Baltimore Bank v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 110 (3d Cir.1978) (abstention inappropriate where underlying commodity subject to complex regulations, but actual claim was simple breach of contract).

See also, Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmers Cheese Cooperative, 583 F.2d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1978) (abstention in deference to state administrative scheme is "for all intents and purposes a final disposition of the case within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.