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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 72 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 Village of Westfield, N.Y., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Welch's, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Village of Westfield, N.Y., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Welch's, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant Anchor | green | “the absence of federal issues does not strongly advise dismissal, unless the state law issues are novel or particularly complex.” | 19 |
| 2 | National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Herbert Karp | green | “federal and state proceedings are 'concurrent' or 'parallel' for purposes of abstention when the two proceedings are essentially the same; that is, there is an identity of parties, and the issues and relief sought are the same.” | 17 |
| 3 | Iva Woodford v. Community Action Agency Of Greene County, Inc. | green | “the facial neutrality of a factor is a basis for retaining jurisdiction, not for yielding it.” | 17 |
| 4 | Iva Woodford v. Community Action Agency Of Greene County, Inc. | green | “the primary context in which the second circuit has affirmed colorado river abstention in order to avoid piecemeal adjudication has involved lawsuits that posed a risk of inconsistent outcomes not preventable by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.” | 6 |
| 5 | Radioactive, J v. v. Manson | green | “the underlying principles of the colorado river doctrine rest on considerations of 'wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” | 5 |
| 6 | Iva Woodford v. Community Action Agency Of Greene County, Inc. | green | “is a basis for retaining jurisdiction, not for yielding it.” | 4 |
| 7 | Mazuma Holding Corp. v. Bethke | green | “while not staying the federal actions will lead to some amount of duplication due to similar 'factual underpinnings,' such 'duplication does not weigh significantly in favor of abstention.” | 4 |
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.