Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Fifth Circuit· 6/23/1981

Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance

Citations

  • 648 F.2d 1020

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).

Judges: Ainsworth, Clark, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.