TABLE 1


  
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.