Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that intervening developments rendered abstention appropriate while also acknowledging that the district court’s decision not to abstain was not erroneous
• “If on its face the statute warned too broadly, deference to the state courts would be inappropriate.”
• “Section 43.21(a)(1) defines obscenity with language drawn directly from the Supreme Court’s landmark Miller decision.”
• “[I]n view of the high cost of abstention in the context of suits seeking review of statutes exerting a purported chilling effect on First Amendment rights, . . . we cannot say that [the] district court abused its discretion in declining to invoke Pullman abstention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance
  Fifth Circuit· 1981-08-24