Legal Opinion

Moe v. Dinkins

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 9, 1980No. 454, Docket 80-7676PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

Federal adjudication of constitutional challenges to state statutes is an arduous task, for the delicate balance between federal and state power must be crafted with a sensitivity responsive to their respective authorities. The Constitution and Congress equip federal courts with authority to void state laws that transgress federal civil rights, but comity toward state sovereignty counsels the power be sparingly used. Accordingly, the doctrine of abstention authorizes our federal courts to refrain from interpreting state law where ambiguities in that law might…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Zwickler v. KootaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Carey v. Population Services InternationalSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hughes v. LipscherCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  2. Dionne v. BouleyDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1984
  3. CECOS International, Inc. v. JorlingDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1989
  4. Philipp v. CareyDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1981
  5. Stretton v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API