Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.

noting that state had strong interest in deciding issues that involved"a most basic problem of [state] public policy" and "the treacherous waters of state political controversy" | noting that state had strong interest in deciding issues that involved “a most basic problem of [state] public policy” and “the treacherous waters of state political controversy” | noting that "the [Supreme] Court 3 held [in Quackenbush] that Burford can support only a stay, and not the outright dismissal or remand, of a damages action" | noting that “[t]he district court’s reliance on its ‘inherent equitable power’ in granting [an expansive injunction against video poker operators] made federal encroachment on the state’s regulatory domain all the more invasive” | reprimanding the district court for “trying to predict how the South Carolina Supreme Court would decide [a land use] question,” instead of applying Burford abstention | finding regulation of gambling a “paramount” state policy concern in the Burford abstention context | dismissing claims for injunctive relief and staying plaintiffs’ claims for damages where plaintiffs’ lawsuit raised “a number of disputed questions of state law yet to be resolved by the state courts” | “Basie abstention doctrine requires federal courts to avoid interference with a state’s administration of its own affairs.” | "[T]he state system does possess greater competence than the federal courts to decide questions of state law impacting state public policy." | civil RICO claim dependent on violations of state law for predicate acts | civil RICO claim dependent on violations of state law for predicate acts | RICO claim dependent on state law predicate offenses