This argument is based on mis-cited cases and faulty logic. Wooley is thus irrelevant. There is furthermore no logical case to this argument. Nothing indicates that the state court would take the unprecedented step of imposing liability for sales which have not yet occurred. The outcome of the state litigation, whatever that may be, will affect future liabilities under the familiar doctrine of res judicata .
Injunctions are always prospective.
But these truisms have no bearing on Younger abstention. The Tobacco Companies also argue that abstention analysis in this case should be governed by Pullman not Younger , abstention. However, these doctrines are not mutually exclusive. Since abstention is appropriate under Younger , as discussed above, Pullman analysis is thus unnecessary. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, December 23, 1996.