How cited: Knudsen Corporation v. Nevada State Dairy Commission · Go Syfert

Knudsen Corporation v. Nevada State Dairy Commission (1982)

green · 104 citation events across 26 courts. Showing the 33 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197319992026
Quote Authority · 9th Cir. · 10 citations in this opinion
Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460, 1463 (9th Cir. 1985). 59 676 F.2d 374 (9th Cir. 1982). 60 Knudsen, 676 F.2d at 377. 61 See Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Int'l Union v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 984 F.2d 1507, 1512 (1993). 62 See Knudsen, 676 F.2d at 377 ("A federal court may postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction in cases presenting a federal constitutional issue which might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state court dete…
"A federal court may postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction 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."
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
See, e.g., United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Muir, 792 F.2d 356, 364 (3d Cir.1986); Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Empie, 778 F.2d 1447 , 1451 n. 4 (10th Cir.1985) (preemption questions based only on the Supremacy Clause considered not to be “the type of constitutional issues” warranting Pullman abstention); Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982) (“[n]o constitutional issues of substance” presented by preemption claim).
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
See, e.g., United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Muir, 792 F.2d 356, 364 (3d Cir.1986); Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Empie, 778 F.2d 1447 , 1451 n. 4 (10th Cir.1985) (preemption questions based only on the Supremacy Clause considered not to be "the type of constitutional issues" warranting Pullman abstention); Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982) ("[n]o constitutional issues of substance" presented by preemption claim). 25 Though …
Quote Authority · 9th Cir. · signal: accord
Co., 703 F.2d at 377 (internal quotations omitted); accord Knudsen Corp., 676 F.2d at 377 ("One of the main principles served by the Pullman abstention doctrine is the avoidance of deciding constitutional issues.").
"One of the main principles served by the Pullman abstention doctrine is the avoidance of deciding constitutional issues."
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
If the district court determines that Burford abstention is appropriate under the circumstances, dismissal rather than stay of the federal action is normally required. 1 See Burford, 319 U.S. at 334 , 63 S.Ct. at 1108 ; Knudsen, 676 F.2d at 377.
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982).
green Llewellyn v. Crothers (1985)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See Mid-Cal Aluminum, 445 U.S. at 105 , 100 S.Ct. at 943 ; Knudsen Corp v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 379 (9th Cir.1982); Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs, 670 F.2d 813, 822 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011 , 102 S.Ct. 2308 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1982).
green Llewellyn v. Crothers (1985)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See Mid-Cal Aluminum, 445 U.S. at 105 , 100 S.Ct. at 943 ; Knudsen Corp v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 379 (9th Cir.1982); Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs, 670 F.2d 813, 822 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011 , 102 S.Ct. 2308 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1982).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See also Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. at 814 , 96 S.Ct. at 1244 ; Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See also Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. at 814 , 96 S.Ct. at 1244 ; Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Comm. v. Southern Railway, 341 U.S. 341 , 71 S.Ct. 762 , 95 L.Ed. 1002 (1951); Colorado River Water Conservation District, supra, 424 U.S. at 814-16, 96 S.Ct. at 1244-45; Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 376-77 (9 Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Comm. v. Southern Railway, 341 U.S. 341 , 71 S.Ct. 762 , 95 L.Ed. 1002 (1951); Colorado River Water Conservation District, supra, 424 U.S. at 814-16, 96 S.Ct. at 1244-45; Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 376-77 (9 Cir.1982). 9 Here, by contrast, the Maryland state courts do not stand in any special relationship of technical oversight or concentrated review to the educational certification process the way the Texas or Alabama resource review court…
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See, e.g., Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 481 , 97 S.Ct. 1898, 1904 , 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (1977) ("abstention may eliminate or materially alter the constitutional issue presented"); Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 146-47 , 96 S.Ct. 2857, 2865-2866 , 49 L.Ed.2d 844 (1976) ("abstention is appropriate where [deferral to the state courts] '... might avoid in whole or in part the necessity for federal constitutional adjudication, or at least materially ch…
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See, e.g., Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 481 , 97 S.Ct. 1898, 1904 , 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (1977) (“abstention may eliminate or materially alter the constitutional issue presented”); Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 146-47 , 96 S.Ct. 2857, 2865-2866 , 49 L.Ed.2d 844 (1976) (“abstention is appropriate where [deferral to the state courts] ‘. .. might avoid in whole or in part the necessity for federal constitutional adjudication, or at least materially c…
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
Under that doctrine, federal courts vested with jurisdiction may nonetheless 21 “decline to rule on an essentially local issue arising out of a complicated state regulatory scheme.” 22 Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Comm’n, 676 F.2d 374 , 376 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 23 Application of Burford generally requires: 24 first, that the state has chosen to concentrate suits challenging the actions of the agency involved in a particular court; second, that federal …
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
Tucker v. First Maryland Sav. & Loan, Inc., 942 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir.1991) (citing Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982)).
Rule Authority · D. Or. · 2 citations in this opinion
Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 376-378 (9th Cir. 1982).
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.
The doctrine applies when: 7 first, that the state has chosen to concentrate suits challenging the actions of the agency involved in a particular court; second, that federal issues 8 could not be separated easily from complex state law issues with respect to which state courts might have special competence; and third, that federal 9 review might disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy. 10 Id. at 377.
Rule Authority · N.D. Ind.
“Its application generally requires first, that the state has chosen to concentrate suits challenging the action of the agency involved in a particular court; second, that federal issues could not be separated easily from complex state law issues to which state courts might have special competence; and third, that federal review might disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy.” Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
As stated in Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982): Its application generally requires first, that the state has chosen to concentrate suits challenging the actions of the agency involved in a particular court; second, that federal issues could not be separated easily from complex state law issues with respect to which state courts might have special competence; and third, that federal review might disrupt state efforts to establish…
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion
See id.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: accord
Co., 703 F.2d at 377 (internal quotations omitted); accord Knudsen Corp., 676 F.2d at 377 ("One of the main principles served by the Pullman abstention doctrine is the avoidance of deciding constitutional issues.”).
"One of the main principles served by the Pullman abstention doctrine is the avoidance of deciding constitutional issues.”
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
Id. at 211; see Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 376-78 (9th Cir.1982). 2 Third, Younger abstention, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), is inappropriate because that doctrine is only applicable to federal actions which interfere with state criminal proceedings or civil proceedings brought to vindicate vital state interests.
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see
See Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir. 1982); Hanna v. Toner, 630 F.2d 442, 446 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 , 101 S.Ct. 1365 , 67 L.Ed.2d 346 (1981). (3) Illinois has not created a public agency or special system of judicial review nor otherwise indicated that the matter in question requires specialized expertise.
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see
See Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir. 1982); Hanna v. Toner, 630 F.2d 442, 446 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 , 101 S.Ct. 1365 , 67 L.Ed.2d 346 (1981). (3) Illinois has not created a public agency or special system of judicial review nor otherwise indicated that the matter in question requires specialized expertise.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
Id. at 211; see Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374 , 376-78 (9th Cir.1982). 2 Third, Younger abstention, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), is inappropriate because that doctrine is only applicable to federal actions which interfere with state criminal proceedings or civil proceedings brought to vindicate vital state interests.
green Midkiff v. Tom (1983)
Cited · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Knudsen Corp., 676 F.2d at 377 ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 614 F.2d at 211 . 76 Hawaii has not created specialized courts to hear cases arising under the Act and the federal due process issue is not linked to complex state law issues.
green Midkiff v. Tom (1983)
Cited · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Knudsen Corp., 676 F.2d at 377 ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 614 F.2d at 211 .
green In re Jefferson County (2012)
Cited · Bankr. N.D. Ala. · signal: see
See Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Comm’n, 676 F.2d 374 , 376 (9th Cir.1982); Carlson v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n of the State of Ill.
Cited · C.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Comm'n, 676 F.2d 374 , 377 (9th Cir.1982). 14 .
Cited · E.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Knudsen Corp. v. Nevada State Dairy Commission, 676 F.2d 374, 377 (9th Cir.1982) (Pullman), Tucker v. First Maryland Sav. & Loan, Inc., 942 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir.1991) (Burford). 6 .