TABLE 1


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.