Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs
| Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 5, 2013 Decided December 10, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Sprint Communications Inc., Petitioner v. Elizabeth S. Jacobs et al. |
| Docket no. | 12-815 |
| Citations | 571 U.S. 69 (more) 134 S. Ct. 584; 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 690 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversed) |
| Holding | |
| Federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by unanimous |
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. The case involved a dispute between Sprint Corporation and Windstream Communications.