Pearl Investment Company, a California Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding Pullman abstention was appropriate even though the plaintiff 3 25-1038 raised no independent state-law claims
• criticizing this Court's liberal approach toward Pullman's third requirement in land use cases, but nonetheless following that reasoning as controlling precedent
• criticizing this Court’s liberal approach toward Pullman’s third requirement in land use cases, but nonetheless following that reasoning as controlling precedent
• stating Pullman 22 abstention appropriate when federal court “cannot predict with any confidence how 23 the state’s highest court would decide an issue of state law”
• courts should abstain under Pullman only “where principles of comity and federalism justify postponing the exercise of jurisdiction that Congress conferred upon federal courts”
• “Uncertainty for purposes of Pullman abstention means that a federal court cannot predict with any confidence how the state’s highest court would decide an issue of state law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).