In General Atomic Co. v. Felter, Judge, et al., 1977, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute between General Atomic Company and Gulf Oil Corporation over a joint venture agreement for uranium enrichment technology development. The case was initially filed in state court by Gulf Oil but later moved to federal court due to its connection with significant issues of federal law related to nuclear energy regulation. However, the lower courts issued conflicting injunctions - one from the state court favoring Gulf Oil and another from the federal district court favoring General Atomic. The Supreme Court held that under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States precedent (which allows for abstention in cases involving concurrent jurisdiction), it was inappropriate for both courts to issue conflicting orders simultaneously as this created an unworkable administration of justice situation where parties could be held in contempt by one court for obeying another's order. Therefore, while acknowledging that both state and federal courts had jurisdiction over different aspects of this complex commercial litigation matter relating to nuclear energy policy matters regulated at both levels of government; it ruled that only one forum should proceed at any given time based on principles of wise judicial administration avoiding duplicative or piecemeal litigation.

In the dissenting opinion for General Atomic Co. v. Felter, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have granted certiorari in this case because there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting such intervention. The dissent noted that while federal courts do have a role to play in preventing state court interference with their jurisdiction, they must exercise restraint and only intervene when necessary to protect clear federal interests or prevent irreparable harm. In this case, according to the dissenters, neither of these conditions were met as there was no evidence of bad faith on part of state courts nor any threat of immediate harm to parties involved if proceedings continued at state level. They also pointed out that granting certiorari here could set a dangerous precedent by encouraging more frequent appeals for interlocutory relief from ongoing state court actions which would disrupt both judicial systems and undermine principles of comity between them.