Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.
- Decided
- June 12, 1995
- Docket
- 94-562
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,521 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that in declaratory judgment actions, district courts have “greater” discretion to abstain than under Colorado River’s “exceptional circumstances” test — Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating District (2012)
- holding that district court decisions on whether to exercise jurisdiction in declaratory judgment actions are subject only to abuse-of-discretion appellate review — Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. (2010)
- holding that Brillhart governs the propriety of a district court’s decision to stay a declaratory judgment action — American Guarantee & Liability Insurance v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case asks whether the discretionary standard set forth in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U. S. 491 (1942), or the “exceptional circumstances” test developed in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1 (1983), governs a district court’s decision to stay a declaratory judgment action during the pendency of parallel state court proceedings, and under what standard of review a court of appeals should evaluate the district court’s decision to do so.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.