Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. Cryan

The doctrine of abstention enunciated in Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co.1a admonishes that, under certain circumstances, a federal court should postpone resolution of a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute until there has been a definitive construction of that statute by the state court.2a

In making the determination whether to abstain, a court must engage in a balancing of weighty concerns. On the side of abstention is the possibility that the construction rendered by the state court would avoid or modify the constitutional challenge posed. By deferring its decision, the…