Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)

Citation: Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Parent Document: Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Original Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0405_0056_ZS.html ↗

Full Text

1,355 chars

The District Court correctly declined to abstain from considering the constitutionality of the FED Statute since: 'The challenged statute is clear. It is unlikely that an application of state law would change the posture of the federal constitutional issues. No state administrative process is involved. The case has been thoroughly briefed and argued on the merits, and is presented on a clear and complete record.' App. 73. Since the judicially created doctrine of abstention involves duplication of effort and expense and an attendant delay, see England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , 418 , 84 S.Ct. 461, 466, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964), this Court has emphasized that it should be applied only 'where the issue of state law is uncertain,' Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 , 534 , 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1182, 14 L.Ed.2d 50 (1965), and 'only in narrowly limited 'special circumstances," Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 248 , 88 S.Ct. 391, 395, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967) (citing Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472 , 492 , 69 S.Ct. 1333, 1344, 93 L.Ed. 1480 (1949)). See Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82 , 90 S.Ct. 788, 25 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970). The Oregon FED Statute has been in effect for over 100 years, and there is a substantial body of interpretative decisions by the Oregon courts. 6 402 U.S. 941 , 91 S.Ct. 1624, 29 L.Ed.2d 109 (1971). 7

Other Sections in This Document (148)

Full Text