28 U.S.C. § 1341

169 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ashton v. Cory
  780 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 306×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over CLVT's declaratory judgment action because CLVT has a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state court, and ERISA's jurisdictional grant was not intended as an exception to the Act.
• Josiah L. Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi
  741 F.2d 1169· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 68×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar injunctive relief against state officials for alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations, but claims for repayment to the state are barred by lack of standing. State officials are not protected by qualified immunity from suits seeking injunctions
• Bland v. McHANN
  463 F.2d 21· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 68×
• The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. City OF Hallandale
  734 F.2d 666· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 62×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over claims challenging the revenue-raising provisions of a municipal ordinance, but not over claims challenging purely regulatory provisions that are severable from the tax provisions.
• Hargrave v. Shellie McKINNEY
  413 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 62×
  The court should affirm the district court's decision because the equal protection claim is insubstantial and settled by precedent.
• City OF Houston & Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standard-Triumph Motor Co., Inc.
  347 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1965-05-25 ·cited 52×
• Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Collins
  921 F.2d 1237· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff demonstrates that state remedies for tax challenges are inadequate, and that the district court erred by dismissing the case without a full factual inquiry into the adequacy of Georgia's
• Williams v. City OF Dothan
  745 F.2d 1406· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as plaintiffs' claims were not barred by estoppel or the Tax Injunction Act, and a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding discriminatory intent.
• Moses v. Kinnear
  490 F.2d 21· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's stay order was appealable and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further consideration in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions.
• Am. Commuters Ass'n, Inc. v. Levitt
  405 F.2d 1148· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that federal courts are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341 from enjoining state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and that non-residents are not entitled to state benefits simply because they pay taxes.
• The Bd. OF Educ. OF Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. NO. 365U v. Bosworth
  713 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 33×
  The court held that abstention was proper due to the progress of parallel state proceedings which had rendered much of the federal complaint moot, and modified the dismissal to a stay.
• Fulton Mkt. Cold Storage Co. v. Cullerton
  582 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 32×
  The Tax Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 1341) does not bar a federal civil rights action for damages against state tax officials, as the Act's purpose is to prevent federal equitable interference with state tax collection, not to immunize officials from liability for retrospective mo
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Tully
  639 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the preemption issue was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA), while the Tax Injunction Act issue was properly before this court.
• Hamer v. Cnty. OF Lake
  819 F.2d 1362· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that attorney's fees could be awarded against the plaintiffs because their claims were largely frivolous, but fees could not be awarded against their attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Dunn v. Carey
  808 F.2d 555· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not apply to requests for injunctions that might allow state or local governments to collect additional taxes, and that third parties not bound by a consent decree may litigate their claims in state court.
• 28 E. Jackson Enters., Inc. v. Cullerton
  523 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge believes the federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin the sale of property despite principles of comity, as the adequacy of state remedies is uncertain.
• United States v. State TAX Comm'n
  481 F.2d 963· 1st Cir.· 1973-06-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Massachusetts deposits tax violates federal law by creating a discriminatory deduction for federal savings and loan associations, but declined to grant declaratory relief for the income tax due to adequate state remedies.
• Dewitt Dillon v. The State of Mont.
  634 F.2d 463· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 26×
  The Tax Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 1341) bars federal court jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state courts, including suits for tax refunds.
• Appling Cnty. v. Mun. Elec. Auth. OF Ga.
  621 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 26×
  The district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were insubstantial and the county lacked standing.
• Fed. Reserve Bank OF Boston v. Comm'r OF Corps. & Taxation OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  499 F.2d 60· 1st Cir.· 1974-07-11 ·cited 26×
  The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston may sue in federal court for a declaration concerning the legality of the Massachusetts sales tax on its building materials, as it is a fiscal arm of the federal government with clear statutory access to federal courts.
• Mandel v. Hutchinson
  494 F.2d 364· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
• Bussie v. Mrs. Blanche Revere Long
  383 F.2d 766· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly declined to convene a three-judge panel and properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies existed for the tax assessment dispute.
• Gray v. Morgan
  371 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1966-12-22 ·cited 25×
  Federal courts are prohibited from enjoining the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and the Civil Rights Act does not override this prohibition for tax disputes.
• State OF Ariz. & Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Atchison
  656 F.2d 398· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 24×
  Federal jurisdiction does not lie because the State of Arizona's claim relies on the anticipated defense of a federal statute, which is barred by the Mottley limitation.
• Helmsley v. City OF Detroit
  320 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1963-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments.
• Williams v. City OF Dothan
  818 F.2d 755· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in reconsidering issues previously decided under the law of the case doctrine and that the city's assessment project had a discriminatory effect violating a prior court order.
• The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Seattle v. State OF Wash.
  629 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Johnson Act bars federal jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin state tax collection, and that the Housing Authority does not qualify for exceptions as a federal instrumentality or due to a special federal interest without the United States joining as a
• Town OF Ball v. Rapides Parish Police Jury
  746 F.2d 1049· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Equal Protection Clause applies to state tax revenue distribution, but the parish's exclusion of the Town of Ball from sales tax revenues had a rational basis, specifically the need to secure repayment of bonds.
• Robinson Protective Alarm Co. v. City OF Philadelphia
  581 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 20×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over challenges to state or local taxes if a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists, and the definition of 'tax' for the Act's purposes is a matter of federal law, not state labels.
• United States v. State TAX Comm'n OF the State OF Miss.
  505 F.2d 633· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the United States was not the real party in interest and the case presented no federal question, as state remedies were available.
• Ret. Fund Tr. OF THE Plumbing v. Franchise TAX Bd.
  909 F.2d 1266· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 18×
  State tax levies and withholding procedures are not preempted by ERISA when they apply to welfare benefit plans, and federal courts may not enjoin state tax collection if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state court.
• Redding Ford v. Cal. State Bd. OF Equalization
  722 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-16 ·cited 18×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists, even if the taxpayer cannot afford to pay the tax upfront.
• Redd v. Lambert
  674 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees because their state court action did not constitute an "action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1983" as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the Tax Injunction Act remits plaintiffs entirely to state
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Tully
  653 F.2d 497· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 18×
  The New York anti-passthrough provision of its tax law is preempted by the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with the federal Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act's objectives of equitable distribution and pricing.
• Kiker v. Hefner
  409 F.2d 1067· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and that res judicata bars relitigation of claims between the same parties.
• The Detroit Edison Co. v. E. China Twp. Sch. Dist. NO. 3
  378 F.2d 225· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that annexation of school districts is a political matter not subject to federal constitutional challenge, and that federal courts should abstain from hearing challenges to state tax assessments when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists.
• The Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. McNAMARA
  817 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Louisiana Tax on Transportation and Communication Utilities discriminates against railroads in violation of the 4-R Act and that the discriminatory tax cannot be collected in part.
• Southend Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n v. Cnty. OF ST. Clair
  743 F.2d 1207· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, or the Fourteenth Amendment, as the County's alleged inaction regarding tax delinquent properties did not sufficiently impact housing availability or contrac
• Taub v. Commonwealth OF Ky.
  842 F.2d 912· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 16×
  A state taxpayer lacks standing in federal court to enjoin state expenditures for allegedly unconstitutional purposes unless they allege a direct and palpable injury, not a generalized grievance shared by all taxpayers.
• Indian Country v. State OF Okla. ex rel. the Okla. TAX Comm'n & the Dist. Attorney of Tulsa Cnty.
  829 F.2d 967· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Mackey site is Indian country and state regulation and taxation of Creek Nation Bingo are preempted, but reversed the dismissal of ICUSA.
• Zellmer Fromm and Marilyn Tucker v. Rosewell
  771 F.2d 1089· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that principles of comity and the Tax Injunction Act bar federal court review of state tax assessment disputes when adequate state remedies exist. The taxpayer objection procedure in Illinois is considered such a remedy.
• Richmond v. Dep't OF Taxation
  762 F.2d 375· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that § 306(l)(d) of the 4-R Act applies to discriminatory state net income taxes, but the Virginia net income tax as applied does not discriminate against railroads.
• Sipe v. Amerada Hess Corp.
  689 F.2d 396· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-10 ·cited 16×
  The Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity preclude federal courts from entertaining suits that interfere with state tax collection, even when seeking damages or involving private employers.
• A Bonding Co. v. Sunnuck
  629 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 16×
  The Tax Injunction Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain suits seeking to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts.
• Tennyson v. GAS Serv. Co.
  506 F.2d 1135· 10th Cir.· 1974-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Johnson Act precludes federal jurisdiction over challenges to state utility rate orders, even when framed as class actions seeking declaratory and monetary relief.
• Non-Resident Taxpayers Ass'n v. The Municipality OF Philadelphia
  478 F.2d 456· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Johnson Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and effective state remedy exists, and that federal regulations requiring employees to pay local taxes do not violate due process or privacy rights.
• Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF the State OF Or.
  724 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the case was not ripe for decision because no tax had yet been assessed, and therefore, the prudential considerations of comity and the policies underlying the Tax Injunction Act counseled against federal court intervention.
• Shell Petroleum, N.V. v. Graves
  709 F.2d 593· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 14×
  A foreign corporation shareholder lacks standing to challenge state tax assessments when the injury is not direct and independent of the corporation, and the controversy is not ripe due to ongoing administrative proceedings offering plain, speedy, and efficient state remedies.
• Sacks Bros. Loan Co., Inc. v. Cunningham
  578 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court intervention in state tax matters if a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists, and the five-year statute of limitations applies to actions against public officers for acts in their official capacity.
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF The State OF Wash.
  934 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by referring the entire case to a special master, as no exceptional circumstances justified such a broad delegation of judicial authority.