Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lac D'amiante Du Quebec, Ltee v. American Home Assurance Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lac D'amiante Du Quebec, Ltee v. American Home Assurance Company Anchor | green | “that burford abstention is appropriate in cases seeking declaratory relief, even though such relief does not fall within the traditional boundaries of equity jurisdiction.” | 3 |
| 2 | Riley v. Simmons | green | “this court will dismiss the action without prejudice as burford abstention is appropriate.” | 3 |
| 3 | Riley v. Simmons | green | “this is not a case where plaintiffs' federal claims give them an independent or separate remedy” | 3 |
| 4 | University of Maryland at Baltimore v. Peat Marwick Main & Co. | green | “of a forum and of all recourse to have their claims heard on the merits” | 3 |
| 5 | General Glass Industries Corp. v. Monsour Medical Foundation | green | “the distinction between legal and equitable relief is not dispositive in abstention cases,” | 3 |
| 6 | Hayes v. Gross | green | “an individual stockholder may sue officers and directors based on an injury distinct from the injury to the corporation and the indirect injury to stockholders generally.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.