Younger abstention, named for Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is less permissive to the federal courts, barring them from hearing civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim in state court.
[6] There are three exceptions to Younger abstention: Burford abstention, derived from Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943), allows a federal court to abstain in complex administrative processes (the case itself dealt with the regulation of oil drilling operations in Texas).
The Colorado River abstention, from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) comes into play where parallel litigation is being carried out, particularly where federal and state court proceedings are simultaneously being carried out to determine the rights of parties with respect to the same questions of law.
In contrast to Pullman and other key abstention doctrines that came before, Colorado River is in application prudential and discretionary, concerned not so much with comity as with avoidance of waste from duplicate litigation.
Each of the various federal circuits has come up with its own list of factors to weigh in determining whether to abstain from hearing a case under this doctrine.
Typically, these include: Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, civil courts cannot delve into matters that focus on "theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of a church to the standard of morals required of them.
"[9] Courts have also declined to resolve disputes arising out of a business's claim that some good or service complied with the laws of a particular religion.
In Mammon v. SCI Funeral Service of Florida, Inc., the Florida Court of Appeals cited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in rejecting a fraud and emotional distress lawsuit[10] where a cemetery allegedly failed to provide a "proper Jewish burial" to the plaintiff's husband.