Gwynedd Properties, Inc. v. Lower Gwynedd Township, Catherine M. Harper, Edward J. Brandt, Janet H. Kirch, Richard Landis, and Robert McQuade

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that Younger “abstention is appropriate to the extent an injunction ... would result in a de facto review” of the issues “currently under review in the state courts”
• noting relationship between claims asserted in federal and state action in typical situation where Younger abstention applies
• observing that, in the typical case for Younger abstention, “the federal plaintiff’s object in filing the federal action is either to seek an injunction against the state proceedings themselves or to challenge the law being applied in those proceedings”
• entertaining a development corporation’s § 1983 due process claim alleging that a municipality violated the corporation’s right to reasonable use and development of its land
• admonishing “district courts not to dismiss claims hastily merely because they may involve land use issue”
• abstention not appropriate where “federal plaintiff seeks only prospective relief without seeking to annul state court judgments”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).