Nature of Litigation | Application of H.R. 1534 |
---|---|
Property owner only alleges federal constitutional violations in federal court land use action | H.R. 1534 would apply. |
State law claim alleged pendent to federal claim in federal court | H.R. 1534 would not apply. Federal judge has traditional discretion to accept or reject pendent state claim. |
Property owner or public agency brings parallel proceeding in state court related to a simultaneous land use action in federal court (Younger abstention) | Based on my suggestions below, H.R. 1534 would not apply. If federal judge exercises traditional discretion and abstains, all claims must be litigated in state court. |
Federal claim rests on an unsettled issue of state law (Pullman abstention) | H.R. 1534 would allow the federal judge to certify the question for state court interpretation. |
Federal claim requires interpretation of complex state regulatory program (Burford abstention) | H.R. 1534 would allow the federal judge to certify the question for state court interpretation. |