NATURE OF LITIGATION
| APPLICATION OF H.R. 2372 |
| |
Property owner only alleges federal constitutional violations in federal court land use action. | H.R. 2372 would apply.
|
State law claim alleged pendent to federal claim in federal court. | H.R. 2372 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). | H.R. 2372 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. 2372 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. 2372 would allow the federal judge to certify the question for state court interpretation.
|