The Supreme Court of the United States has noted that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigant.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). In Colorado River Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), the Supreme Court held that the abstention doctrine empowers federal courts to decline to exercise or to postpone the exercise of their jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where a parallel state-court proceeding is pending, and where permitting the state-court proceeding to proceed would clearl 3 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943)(<HOLDING>). There is no precise rule for parallel
holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court the principles of younger v harris should apply in full force holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court holding that federal proceedings should have been dismissed where the subject matter of the lawsuit in the federal district court in volved the review of oil drilling permits by a state agency because the state had established its own review system for the permits and a federal court ruling would have an impermissibly disruptive affect on state policy for management of the oil fields