Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283)

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

• Sw. Airlines Co. v. Tex. Int'l Airlines, Inc.
  546 F.2d 84· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 115×
  The court held that a federal court has ancillary jurisdiction to enjoin state court proceedings that seek to relitigate issues already decided in a prior federal judgment, even if the relitigating parties were not parties to the original federal suit, provided their interests we
• United States v. Wood
  295 F.2d 772· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-27 ·cited 111×
  The dissenting judge argues that the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order was not appealable and that the federal government is not immunized from the federal anti-injunction statute.
• Gresham Park Cmty. Org. v. Howell
  652 F.2d 1227· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate, requiring dismissal of the federal suit seeking to enjoin state court proceedings, even though the state court's injunction was immediately enforceable and created state action.
• Piambino v. Bailey
  610 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 85×
  The court held that summary judgment declaring Bestline's distributorships to be securities was improvidently entered.
• NEW Jersey Educ. Ass'n v. Burke
  579 F.2d 764· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, and that the state court judgment's res judicata effect on federal claims depends on whether those claims were actually litigated in state court.
• Baines v. City OF Danville
  337 F.2d 579· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-10 ·cited 74×
  The court granted petitions for rehearing in two specific cases to consider the effect of newly enacted legislation on the prior disposition.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo pending appeal of a state court judgment, as federal jurisdiction was proper and abstention doctrines did not apply.
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• Rowe v. Griffin
  676 F.2d 524· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the extraordinary circumstances exception to Younger abstention applies, justifying equitable relief.
• Kennecott Corp. & KC Dev. Inc. v. Smith
  637 F.2d 181· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying preliminary injunctive relief, finding that abstention doctrines did not preclude federal review and that Kennecott demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm due to the conflict between the New
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers et. al. v. NIX
  512 F.2d 125· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to prevent relitigation of issues already fully and finally adjudicated in federal court under the "protect or effectuate its judgments" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  861 F.2d 1248· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 57×
  The federal district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the indemnity cross-claim after removal, and the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining the state court. However, the district court erred in denying attorney's fees to the cross-claimant under Florida law.
• Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  657 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 57×
  Res judicata bars a litigant from bringing a contract claim in state court after a federal court dismissed related antitrust claims on the merits, because the litigant split its cause of action by failing to join the contract claim in the federal action.
• Roth v. Bank OF THE Commonwealth
  583 F.2d 527· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 56×
  The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings that have already commenced, unless an express statutory exception applies. Relying on Barancik to enjoin commenced state actions is improper judicial improvisation.
• Progress Dev. Corp. v. Mitchell
  286 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-04 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, but erred in dismissing certain counts of the complaint and dismissing one of the plaintiffs.
• Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber OF Commerce, Inc.
  705 F.2d 1515· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the dismissal of claims was proper, and the injunction against relitigation was appropriate, though modified to clarify its scope.
• S. Cal. Petroleum Corp. v. Harper
  273 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-08 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the federal court did not err in refusing to enjoin state court proceedings or in dismissing the federal suit, as the state action did not relitigate issues already decided and federal interference was unwarranted.
• Henry v. Farmer City State Bank
  808 F.2d 1228· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the RICO claims were barred by res judicata because the plaintiffs failed to raise their fraud claims as defenses in the prior state court foreclosure proceedings. However, the court reversed the district court's injunction against state court proceedings, fin
• Clay L. Shaw v. Garrison
  467 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 48×
  A finding of bad faith or harassment in a state criminal prosecution is equivalent to showing irreparable injury, thus satisfying the 'special circumstances' requirement for federal courts to enjoin such proceedings under Younger v. Harris.
• H. J. Heinz Co. v. Owens
  189 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 47×
  Federal courts are prohibited by statute from granting injunctions to stay state court proceedings, and granting declaratory relief that would interfere with state proceedings constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Sexton v. Eleanore M. Barry
  233 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1956-04-18 ·cited 46×
  A federal district court should not enjoin state court proceedings, particularly when the issues have already been litigated and decided in state courts, absent specific statutory authorization or necessity to aid federal jurisdiction.
• Boraas v. The Vill. OF Belle Terre
  476 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Village's zoning ordinance is a rational means to achieve legitimate zoning objectives and should be upheld.
• Miofsky v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  703 F.2d 332· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 44×
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the alleged infringement of rights arises from state court proceedings, and res judicata does not bar claims summarily denied by state appellate courts.
• LOU v. Belzberg
  834 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 42×
  State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims, and the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state proceedings except in very limited circumstances.
• Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  739 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 42×
  The court should have abstained from hearing the case due to important state interests implicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.
• In re Federal Skywalk Cases. In re Melanie Hanson Johnson and Gerard Stanley Johnson
  680 F.2d 1175· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a mandatory class action, if modified to permit settlement of punitive damages claims and provide credit for such settlements, would not violate the Anti-Injunction Act and could be properly certified under Rule 23.
• Lynch v. Snepp
  472 F.2d 769· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 38×
  A federal court should not grant a preliminary injunction to restrain a state civil proceeding unless the federal plaintiff demonstrates great and immediate irreparable injury that cannot be remedied by the state court.
• Caulder v. Durham Hous. Auth.
  433 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 38×
  A tenant in federally assisted public housing is entitled to due process protections, including adequate notice and a meaningful hearing, before termination of her lease.
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter
  428 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary prerequisites.
• Ealy v. Talmadge Littlejohn
  569 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 37×
• Duke v. The State OF Tex.
  477 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 35×
  Federal injunctive relief against state judicial proceedings is not prohibited where state procedures are inadequate to protect federal rights and prevent irreparable harm.
• Exxon Corp. v. Chick KAM Choo
  817 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 34×
  The federal court should not interfere with Texas state courts' determination of forum convenience and the propriety of entertaining a case.
• Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  244 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-26 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes federal courts should not interfere with state court proceedings concerning property title after bankruptcy sales.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Sch. Dist. OF Lancaster v. Lake Asbestos OF Quebec, Ltd.
  789 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide mandatory class for punitive damages under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) due to inadequate findings and an under-inclusive class.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Alton BOX Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp.
  682 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred federal courts from enjoining the state court action, and there was no independent federal jurisdiction for declaratory relief on a preemption defense.
• Timmerman v. The Honorable Franchot A. Brown
  528 F.2d 811· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 32×
  Judicial and quasi-judicial officers are immune from suits for money damages but not for equitable or declaratory relief. The Younger v. Harris doctrine does not bar federal equitable relief when plaintiffs allege bad faith or harassment by state officials.
• Astro Cinema Corp. Inc. v. MacKell
  422 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 32×
  The seizure of a single film copy, intended for public exhibition, constitutes a substantial restraint on distribution requiring a prior adversary hearing, but federal courts should not enjoin state obscenity prosecutions unless the statute is facially unconstitutional or applied
• Cousins v. Wigoda
  463 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that vacating a preliminary injunction against a state court action seeking to suppress First Amendment rights was an abuse of discretion.
• Thiokol Chem. Corp. v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  448 F.2d 1328· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-07 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the first suit was properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, but the second suit could proceed under certain conditions. The court also held that an injunction staying state proceedings was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  917 F.2d 1017· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 30×
  A purchaser is not bound by a state court's raze order if it does not appear of record in the chain of title, but may be bound if they had actual or inquiry notice of the order.
• 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.
• Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc.
  754 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the "last in time" rule of res judicata dictates that the New York District Court's order compelling arbitration was binding on the California District Court, entitling the petitioner to an order compelling arbitration.
• Hill v. City OF EL Paso
  437 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-05 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that federal courts should abstain from deciding a constitutional challenge to a local ordinance when state courts can resolve the underlying state law issues, and that federal courts are generally prohibited from enjoining pending state
• Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.
  690 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and abstention doctrines do not bar federal injunctive relief, and the Michigan Take-Over Offers Act's enforcement provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
• Vernitron Corp. & Am. Med. Instrument Corp. v. Benjamin
  440 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 29×
  A federal court injunction staying a state court action is not warranted merely because the state court's factual determinations might have collateral estoppel effect in a federal court with exclusive jurisdiction.
• Father Nathaniel MacHesky v. Honorable William H. Bizzell
  414 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-05 ·cited 29×
• Nat'l City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp.
  687 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar an injunction against state court proceedings when federal relief is sought but not yet granted.
• Operating Eng'rs' Local # 428 Pension Tr. Fund v. Elizabeth K. Zamborsky and the Honorable Morris Rozar
  650 F.2d 196· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not pre-empt a state court order garnishing pension benefits to satisfy a spousal maintenance obligation, as such garnishments are impliedly excepted from ERISA's pre-emption and anti-alienation provisio