Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Federal Courts
Federal Courtsabstentionstaydiversity jurisdictionstate constitutional lawnovel state-law issuepublic useNew Mexico water rights
Facts
Respondent alleged that petitioner illegally trespassed on its land, and petitioner admitted the trespass. Petitioner contended that New Mexico Statutes Annotated § 75-1-3 authorized its entry in order to use water rights the State had granted it. Respondent argued that, if the statute allowed condemnation of private land to secure water for a private business, it would violate the New Mexico Constitution's limitation of takings to "public use." A declaratory judgment action addressing the state-law issues was already pending in the New Mexico courts.
Issue
Whether the federal courts, sitting in diversity, should proceed to decide the novel and important New Mexico state-law question concerning "public use," or instead stay the federal action pending resolution of that issue in the state courts.
Rule
When a diversity case turns on a novel and crucial issue of state law that is of vital concern to the State, and a state-court proceeding is already pending that is likely to resolve the issue promptly, sound judicial administration requires the federal court to stay its hand and retain jurisdiction pending the state court's determination.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Lena Ortiz, a Colorado citizen, sued Red Mesa Minerals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, in federal district court in Albuquerque for trespass and an injunction after the company crossed her ranch to reach a state-issued geothermal site. The company argues a New Mexico statute authorizes access, while Ortiz contends that if the statute permits taking access rights for a private energy project, it violates the New Mexico Constitution’s public-use limitation. A declaratory judgment action presenting the same constitutional question is already pending in New Mexico state court and is expected to be decided soon.
What is the best course for the federal court?
Explanation. When a diversity case turns on a truly novel and crucial issue of state law that is of vital concern to the State, and a state proceeding already pending is likely to resolve it promptly, sound judicial administration calls for the federal court to stay its hand. The proper disposition is a stay, not dismissal, and the federal court should retain jurisdiction in case prompt state resolution does not occur.