Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 29 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29

734

QUACKENBUSH v. ALLSTATE INS. CO.

Kennedy, J., concurring

appropriate balance between state and federal interests, are an important part of the justification and authority for abstention as well. See, e. g., id., at 334 ("[A] sound respect for the independence of state action requires the federal equity court to stay its hand"); Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 44 (1971) (rooting abstention in "a proper respect for state functions" and "sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments"); Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817 (1976) (abstention doctrines are based on "considerations of proper constitutional adjudication and regard for federal-state relations"). See also Shapiro, Jurisdiction and Discretion, 60 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 543, 551-552 (1985). The traditional role of discretion in the exercise of equity jurisdiction makes abstention easiest to justify in cases where equitable relief is sought, but abstention, including dismissal, is a possibility that may yet be addressed in a suit for damages, if fundamental concerns of federalism require us to face the issue.

With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

Page:   Index   Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29

Last modified: October 4, 2007