Sprint Communications Inc. v. Jacobs


New Jersey Law Journal


Court of appeals erroneously found Younger abstention required because the ongoing state-court review of the state utility board's decision concerned the state's important interest in regulating and enforcing state utility rates.

This premium content is reserved for New Jersey Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202632348595

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.