Citation network
Harris County Comm'rs Vs. Moore
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 18, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 77 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Harris County Comm'rs v. MooreSearch
-
U.S. 77 (1975) Harris County Commissioners v. MooreSearch
-
without reaching the merits of the equal protection claim sustained by the District Court. In Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
on numerous occasions. E.g., Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullanSearch
-
Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
U. S. 241 , 389 U. S. 248 (1967), and only upon careful consideration of the facts of each case. Baggett v. BullittSearch
-
Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
likely resolve the state law questions underlying the federal claim, we have regularly ordered abstention. See Askew v. HargraveSearch
-
Chicago v. FieldcrestSearch
-
Meredith v. WinterSearch
-
U. S. 84 law questions have concerned matters peculiarly within the province of the local courts, see Reetz v. BozanichSearch
-
Fornaris v. RidgeSearch
-
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. CitySearch
-
have inclined toward abstention. On the other hand, where the litigation has already been long delayed, see Hostetter v. IdlewildSearch
-
seemed unlikely that resolution of the state law question would significantly affect the federal claim, see Chicago v. AtchisonSearch
-
Public Utilities Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
ruling or otherwise significantly modify the federal claim, the argument for abstention is strong. See Kusper v. PontikesSearch
-
c) and, as a consequence, the nature and continued vitality of the federal constitutional claim. As we wrote in Reetz v. BozanichSearch
-
constables when the County Commissioners Court elects to exercise its redistricting authority. State ex rel. Dowlen v. RigsbySearch
-
Ward v. BondSearch
-
expiration of their terms, even if redistricting resulted in their living outside their precincts. Childress County v. SachseSearch
-
McNeese v. BoardSearch
-
forum after the Texas courts have been given the opportunity to address the state law questions in this case. England v. LouisianaSearch
-
to require that school district officials reside throughout their terms in the districts that they serve. Whitmarsh v. BuckleySearch
-
commissioners, by contrast, are not required to reside in their precincts for their full terms. Childress County v. SachseSearch
-
in administering the challenged statute. Board of Regents v. NewSearch
-
In Gibson v. BerryhillSearch
-
In Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
clarifying interpretation by the state courts, we have regularly required the district courts to abstain. See Reetz v. BozanichSearch
-
Meridian v. SouthernSearch
-
Jones v. WilliamsSearch
-
There is support for this view in several early cases, and in a number of state Attorney General's opinions. See Brown v. MeeksSearch
-
Dowlen v. RigsbySearch
-
but to stay the federal suit pending determination of the state law questions in state court. See Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
relief under state law if a federal court retains jurisdiction over the federal claim. United Services Life Ins. Co. v. DelaneySearch
-
Romero v. ColdwellSearch
-
Barrett v. AtlanticSearch
-
court. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. The principle of abstention -- judicially created by Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
The three judges who made up the District Court in Page 420 U. S. 90 this case were Thomas G. Gee, John v. SingletonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial