28 U.S.C. § 1341

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

• The La. Land & Exploration Co. v. Pilot Petroleum Corp.
  900 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The contract's cost-shifting provision applies to the Alabama jet fuel tax, and the tax does not violate the Import-Export Clause.
• City Vending OF Muskogee, Inc. v. The Okla. TAX Comm'n
  898 F.2d 122· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the state tax assessments because they were either adjudicated by a competent tribunal or the plaintiff failed to pursue available state remedies.
• Parker v. Honorable Juan Agosto-Alicea
  878 F.2d 557· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the taxpayers' suit because the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico eventually provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in the Commonwealth courts.
• United States v. State OF Mich.
  851 F.2d 803· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 4×
• The Atchison v. Bd. OF Equalization OF the State OF Cal.
  795 F.2d 1442· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over claims of discriminatory state taxation of railroad property under federal statute.
• Stephens v. Portal Boat Co.
  781 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists, even if the taxpayer fails to utilize it.
• AIR Polynesia, Inc. v. Freitas
  742 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction because Hawaii's state courts provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging tax assessments. The airline's inability to pay the full assessment does not override
• Cities Serv. GAS Co. v. Okla. TAX Comm'n
  656 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-05 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts are barred by the Tax Injunction Act from enjoining or otherwise interfering with the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state courts, regardless of the likelihood of success in those state courts.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n & State Bd. of Equalization of Tenn.
  631 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal court intervention when a state's tax assessment system violates equal protection, and no plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists.
• LaSALLE Nat'l Bank under Tr. No. 44891 v. Rosewell
  604 F.2d 530· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal jurisdiction over a civil rights action seeking to enjoin the collection of state taxes if the state's legal remedy is not plain, speedy, and efficient, particularly when that remedy fails to provide interest on refunds.
• King v. Sloane
  545 F.2d 7· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-10 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear challenges to state or local taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state courts, even if framed as a civil rights action.
• United States v. Cnty. OF Champaign
  525 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1975-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Illinois Mobile Home Privilege Tax is a tax 'in respect of personal property' within the meaning of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, and thus cannot be levied on nonresident servicemen.
• Randall v. Franchise TAX Bd. OF the State OF Cal.
  453 F.2d 381· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action because a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists for challenging the tax assessment.
• McCAW v. Fase
  216 F.2d 698· 9th Cir.· 1954-10-30 ·cited 3×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because a related case challenging the same tax statute has been decided, rendering the jurisdictional question in this appeal non-justiciable.
• State v. Rendon
  832 So. 2d 141· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The State of Florida appeals from orders granting class certification and summary judgment in a case challenging fees imposed on handicapped parking placards under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court reverses, holding that sovereign immunity bars claims aga
• United States v. Benton
  975 F.2d 511· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge held that the United States lacked standing to sue the State of Missouri for taxes paid by Olin, as the contract did not obligate reimbursement for taxes Olin was exempt from paying.
• Coleman H. Smith v. Travis Cnty. Educ. Dist.
  968 F.2d 453· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal district courts from entertaining claims challenging state tax systems when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts.
• Tunica-Biloxi Tribe v. State OF La.
  964 F.2d 1536· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Louisiana's retail sales tax on the off-reservation purchase of new vehicles by Indian tribes and tribal members is proper and not preempted by federal law.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. State OF NEW York & City of N.Y.
  928 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act barred the FDIC from bringing suit in federal court because the federal instrumentality exception did not apply when the FDIC was not directly taxed and its interest was derivative and aimed at protecting commercial banks, not the federa
• In re Luis Elec. Contracting Corp. v. Hackeling
  917 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the lower courts failed to set forth required findings of fact and conclusions of law, necessitating reversal and remand.
• Alvy Thomas McQUEEN v. Bullock
  907 F.2d 1544· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act barred federal jurisdiction over claims challenging state tax collection, and sovereign immunity barred claims against the United States for alleged violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
• Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. Franchise TAX Bd. OF the State OF Cal.
  860 F.2d 688· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-19 ·cited 2×
  Foreign parent corporations have standing to challenge California's franchise tax because the tax directly and independently injures them by disfavoring the use of their subsidiaries as instrumentalities of foreign commerce.
• The Superior OIL Co. v. The City OF Port Arthur
  726 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 2×
  A prior state court judgment in a quo warranto action, which determined the validity of a municipal annexation, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal court challenge by a taxpayer on the same constitutional grounds.
• Winicki v. Mallard
  441 So. 2d 693· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees to a pro se attorney litigant, despite the attorney's argument that a prior case did not preclude such an award.
• Kunkel v. United States
  689 F.2d 408· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the possibility of a higher Pennsylvania inheritance tax rate was not so remote as to be negligible, impacting federal estate tax calculation.
• Northwood Apts. v. LaVALLEY
  649 F.2d 401· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985 for actions by taxpayers against local tax assessors for damages, especially when an adequate state remedy exists. The judge would also affirm dismissal based on t
• MAY v. The Supreme Court OF the State OF Colo.
  508 F.2d 136· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity. Officials acting within their official capacities are also immune from suit.
• EVE Prods., Inc. v. Shannon
  439 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts should not enjoin state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury.
• Pendleton v. Heard
  824 F.2d 448· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 1×
• Jordan v. Henriquez
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-05
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the Tax Injunction Act and the doctrine of comity, and that the RLUIPA claim failed on its merits.
• Principe v. Okeechobee Cnty. Municipality
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-12
  The court accepted the magistrate judge's report, granting the motion to dismiss because the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over state tax disputes and the amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Capel v. Pasco Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-02
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over challenges to state tax assessments when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state court, and that the plaintiffs' claims were also frivolous.
• Gerow v. Newsom
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-24
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the Franchise Tax Board due to the Tax Injunction Act and lacked personal jurisdiction over the California Executive Branch Defendants.
• Hartigan v. Hernando Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-24
  The court held that a state has broad power to impose taxes, and a property owner cannot claim a constitutional right is violated by the imposition of a property tax, especially when the arguments resemble frivolous 'sovereign citizen' theories.
• Ford v. Brammind
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-09
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege a violation of a constitutional right and the Tax Injunction Act bars federal court interference with state tax matters.
• Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Assocation v. Miami Dade Cnty.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-07-10
  The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the Tax Injunction Act divested it of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's request for a declaration that a tax lien was unenforceable would effectively enjoin the collection of state taxes.
• Cox v. Porsche Fin. Servs., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-19
  The court held that private parties cannot recover civil penalties under FDUTPA, and that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim and the voluntary payment doctrine defense.
• Turner v. Baldwin
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-23
  The court held that principles of comity warrant abstention, requiring dismissal of the federal action without prejudice.
• Orange Cnty. v. Expedia, Inc.
  440 F. Supp. 2d 1341· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-02
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the Tax Injunction Act and that abstention was appropriate, requiring remand to state court.
• Crocog Co. v. Reeves
  992 F.2d 267· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-29
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal action was barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) because the plaintiff could have and should have raised its federal constitutional claims in the prior state court proceeding reviewing the administrative assessment.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. State Bd. OF TAX Comm'rs OF the State OF Ind.
  992 F.2d 119· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-27
  A federal court complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 306 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 is governed by the doctrine of laches, not state statutes of limitations, because the relief sought is purely equitable.
• Barringer v. Griffes
  964 F.2d 1278· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-18
  The Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal jurisdiction because Vermont's administrative tax refund procedure does not provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for constitutional challenges to the motor vehicle use tax.
• Behe v. Chester Cnty. Bd. OF Assessment Appeals
  952 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-23
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over claims challenging state tax assessments when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state court.
• Rayburn Burris v. City OF Little Rock
  941 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-15
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over this case because Arkansas law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging the sewer assessments in state court.
• Amarok Corp. v. State OF Nev.
  935 F.2d 1068· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-13
  The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars federal courts from enjoining state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists, and this bar applies even when the tax is challenged on federal Indian law grounds or by individual Indians.
• Direct Mktg. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bennett
  916 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-23
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal jurisdiction because the availability of a state remedy for out-of-state retailers to seek a refund of use taxes is uncertain.
• Northwood Apts. v. LaVALLEY
  673 F.2d 159· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-16
  The court held that principles of comity require abstention in a damages action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system.
• United States v. State OF Md. & Louis L. Goldstein
  636 F.2d 73· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-31
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the United States, upholding the federal statute prohibiting state income taxation of members of Congress residing in the state solely for congressional attendance.
• Fried v. Carey
  620 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-26
  The court held that federal courts are prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 1341 from enjoining the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state courts.
• Cont'l OIL Co. v. State OF Okla. ex rel. the Okla. Emp. Sec. Comm'n & David Boren
  574 F.2d 1016· 10th Cir.· 1978-04-05
  The court held that while dismissal of the injunctive relief claim was proper, dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim with prejudice was an error, and the matter should be remanded for further proceedings.