28 U.S.C. § 1341

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

• Southland Royalty Co. v. Navajo Tribe OF Indians
  715 F.2d 486· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Navajo Tribe's power to tax oil and gas leases is a valid exercise of tribal authority, not preempted by federal law, and does not require secretarial approval. State taxation of these activities is also permissible.
• Judybill Osceola v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue
  893 F.2d 1231· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars individual Indians from bringing federal court actions to challenge state sales taxes, as Florida provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in its state courts.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Cal. State Bd. OF Equalization
  815 F.2d 1305· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state premiums tax, calculated with reference to benefits paid by ERISA plans, is not preempted by ERISA because it is saved by the insurance saving clause.
• Heimbach v. CHU
  744 F.2d 11· 2d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the Tax Injunction Act barred federal court review of the state tax and that the federal constitutional claims were barred by res judicata.
• Exxon Corp. v. Hunt
  683 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 12×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a federal statute exempts plaintiffs from a state tax, as the federal issue constitutes a defense to a state law claim, and the Tax Injunction Act bars such suits when a plain, speedy, and efficien
• Schneider Transp., Inc. v. Cattanach
  657 F.2d 128· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 12×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin the collection of state taxes, even if constitutional rights are implicated, provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts.
• Alnoa G. Corp. v. City OF Houston
  563 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 11×
  Federal courts are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341 from enjoining state tax collection if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and special street paving assessments are considered 'taxes' for this purpose.
• Long Island Lighting Co. v. Town OF Brookhaven
  889 F.2d 428· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear challenges to state real property taxes when adequate state remedies exist, due to the Tax Injunction Act and the principle of comity.
• Pryzina v. LEY
  813 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act and the principle of comity, and that judicial and prosecutorial defendants were immune from liability.
• Friarton Ests. Corp. v. The City OF NEW York
  681 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata due to prior state court litigation of the same issues, including constitutional claims.
• Strescon Indus., Inc. v. Cohen
  664 F.2d 929· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 10×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over challenges to state tax schemes when the state provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy.
• Vill. OF Arlington Heights v. Reg'l Transp. Auth.
  653 F.2d 1149· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear challenges to state tax laws when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and that municipalities cannot challenge state statutes under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• United States v. State of Ohio
  614 F.2d 101· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that abstention by the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action was proper under both the Pullman and Younger abstention doctrines.
• Miller v. Beda Bauer
  517 F.2d 27· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal Tax Injunction Act barred the suit because Indiana provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy, and the plaintiffs were not instrumentalities of the federal government immune from state taxation.
• In re Gillis
  836 F.2d 1001· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should issue, requiring dismissal of the underlying federal action because principles of comity, augmented by the Tax Injunction Act, bar federal courts from interfering with state tax administration.
• In re Jackson Cnty.
  834 F.2d 150· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a writ of prohibition, as the Tax Injunction Act does not bar orders compelling tax collection and such writs are not substitutes for appeal.
• Winicki v. Mallard
  783 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts should not entertain Section 1983 actions challenging state tax systems when plain, adequate, and complete state remedies are available, due to the principle of comity.
• Comenout v. State OF Wash.
  722 F.2d 574· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 8×
• Wood v. Sargeant
  694 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 8×
  A taxpayer's inability to pay a state tax does not render the state's 'pay and sue' refund remedy inefficient, thus the federal Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction.
• Carrier Corp. v. Hon. Julio Cesar Perez
  677 F.2d 162· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 8×
  A federal court cannot hear a challenge to a Puerto Rico tax if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in the Commonwealth courts, even if the taxpayer believes the Commonwealth courts may rule unfavorably on the merits of a federal claim.
• City OF Burbank v. The State OF Nev.
  658 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 8×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over suits challenging state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and this prohibition is not waivable.
• Moss v. State OF Ga.
  655 F.2d 668· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts are barred by the Tax Injunction Act from hearing suits challenging state ad valorem taxes if a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists.
• Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Whitler
  585 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The federal court lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act to enjoin state tax assessment procedures, as a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy was available in state courts.
• Garrett v. Bamford
  582 F.2d 810· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court correctly abstained, it erred in dismissing the action, and should have retained jurisdiction pending state court proceedings.
• Coon v. Teasdale
  567 F.2d 820· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1341, the federal tax anti-injunction statute, bars federal courts from enjoining state tax collection if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts.
• United States v. Lewisburg Area Sch. Dist.
  539 F.2d 301· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the United States has standing to sue to protect its sovereignty over a federal enclave and that the occupation tax at issue is an income tax covered by the Buck Act, but the tax on housewives is not.
• Omaha Tribe OF Indians v. Peters
  516 F.2d 133· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1360 permits Nebraska to tax income earned by Indians on reservations within the state. The court also affirmed that federal courts have original jurisdiction despite the Tax Injunction Act.
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. The Duly Authorized Gov't OF the Virgin Islands
  459 F.2d 387· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Virgin Islands' gross receipts tax, as applied to an international air carrier, was constitutional because the apportionment formula used was not shown to be a disproportionate exaction or to cause multiple taxation, and the district court had jurisdiction
• Pintozzi v. Scott
  436 F.2d 375· 7th Cir.· 1970-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in declining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1341, as federal intervention in state tax collection matters is generally inappropriate.
• Aronoff v. Franchise TAX Bd. OF the State OF Cal.
  348 F.2d 9· 9th Cir.· 1965-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The district court properly dismissed the taxpayers' complaint seeking to restrain the collection of state income taxes because a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy was available in state courts.
• Wyandotte Chems. Corp. v. City OF Wyandotte
  321 F.2d 927· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments, thus barring federal intervention under the Johnson Act.
• Wright v. McCLAIN
  835 F.2d 143· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state-imposed payments that constitute taxes under state law, provided an efficient state remedy exists.
• Waldron v. Collins
  788 F.2d 736· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 7×
  The absence of a provision for class actions does not render Georgia's procedures for litigating state income tax questions inadequate under the Tax Injunction Act.
• Lussier v. State
  972 F. Supp. 1412· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over the challenge to Florida's special parking permit fees because the fees constitute a tax under state law and Florida courts provide an adequate forum.
• Rendon v. State
  930 F. Supp. 601· S.D. Fla.· 1996-06-12 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims challenging state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state court, even if the claim involves a federal statute like the ADA.
• Bank OF NEW England OLD Colony, N.A. v. Clark
  986 F.2d 600· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The FDIC's removal of a state tax case to federal court is subject to the Tax Injunction Act, and the FDIC is not a federal instrumentality exempt from its provisions.
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Tenn. State Bd. OF Equalization
  964 F.2d 548· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish reasonable cause to believe a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11503 had occurred or was likely to occur.
• Kraebel v. NEW York City Dep't OF Hous. Pres. & Dev.
  959 F.2d 395· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of J51 claims due to the Tax Injunction Act but reversed and remanded the due process claim regarding SCRIE reimbursements, finding a property interest was established.
• Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Johnson & Cravens
  858 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that claims against the FSLIC as receiver must first be pursued through the FSLIC's administrative process, and that the FSLIC's removal of the case to federal court was proper.
• State OF Okla. ex rel. Okla. TAX Comm'n v. Graham
  822 F.2d 951· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 6×
  A claim of tribal sovereign immunity does not satisfy the federal question requirement for removal jurisdiction, as it constitutes a federal defense rather than arising from the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
• Miller v. NYS Pub. Serv. Comm'n & Jamaica Water Co.
  807 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 6×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Johnson Act to award damages for a state-approved utility rate, even if the rate was challenged due to a drought emergency.
• Brooks v. Odie A. Nance
  801 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The Tax Injunction Act and the doctrine of comity deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over actions challenging state tax collection, even when framed as civil rights claims, provided adequate state remedies exist.
• Adams v. State OF Ind.
  795 F.2d 27· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy automatic stay already enjoins tax collection, rendering the injunction request moot, and that damages claims are unripe pending resolution of tax liability in bankruptcy proceedings.
• Marvin F. Poer & Co. v. The Cntys. OF Alameda
  725 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-14 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear state tax refund claims when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, based on the Tax Injunction Act and the principle of comity.
• Noble v. Joint City-County Bd. OF TAX Assessors OF Fulton Cnty.
  672 F.2d 872· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the arbitration process in Fulton County is inadequate to address claims of unconstitutional tax assessment uniformity, a suit in equity in Georgia courts provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy, thus barring federal jurisdiction under the Tax Inj
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Orest T. Dubno
  639 F.2d 919· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar the action because the anti-passthrough provision is a price control measure, not an exercise of taxing power, and the district court's judgment did not enjoin tax collection.
• 28 E. Jackson Enters., Inc. v. Cullerton
  551 F.2d 1093· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Rosewell did not establish that Illinois courts would not grant equitable relief to taxpayers, and therefore, federal jurisdiction remained barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
• United States Brewers Ass'n, Inc. v. Perez
  592 F.2d 1212· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 5×
  The Butler Act bars federal court jurisdiction over suits seeking to restrain the collection of taxes imposed by Puerto Rico, even if the suit challenges an exemption and seeks to equalize tax burdens.
• Trailer Marine Transp. Corp. v. Vazquez
  977 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine applies to Puerto Rico and that the fee imposed on transitory trailers violates this doctrine by discriminating against interstate commerce.
• Keleher v. NEW England Tel. & Tel. Co.
  947 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The Tax Injunction Act creates an absolute jurisdictional bar to federal court involvement in state and local tax enforcement actions, requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.