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

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

• Marshall v. The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association)
  558 F.2d 680· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 28×
  The district court erred in dismissing the Secretary of Labor's action, as ERISA grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, and abstention was inappropriate.
• Lamb Enters., Inc. v. Judge George N. Kiroff
  549 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court vacated the permanent injunction against state court judges and employees, and reversed the judgment against the private defendant.
• Smith v. The Vill. OF Lansing
  241 F.2d 856· 7th Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 28×
  Federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings under the Civil Rights Act, and unsuccessful litigants cannot use federal courts to review state court decisions.
• Holcomb v. AETNA Life Ins. Co.
  228 F.2d 75· 10th Cir.· 1955-08-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction in an interpleader action, as it was expressly authorized by statute and did not violate the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Browning v. Navarro
  887 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that res judicata bars Holloway's claim that the state court judgment was fraudulent, as it could have been raised in a prior federal action. The court also found the clean hands doctrine did not provide a basis to vacate the judgment.
• Tex. Emp'rs' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson
  862 F.2d 491· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 25×
  The court is obligated to follow the current statute, even if it is inadequate.
• Ahrensfeld v. Stephens
  528 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the eminent domain proceedings, affirming the dismissal of the federal action.
• Files v. City OF Rockford
  440 F.2d 811· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting leave to file a notice of appeal instanter, as no excusable neglect was demonstrated, and therefore the appeal was untimely and jurisdiction was lacking.
• D-1 Enters., Inc. v. Commercial State Bank
  864 F.2d 36· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 24×
  Res judicata and compulsory counterclaim rules do not bar claims that could not have been effectively litigated in prior bankruptcy proceedings, particularly in contested matters like motions to lift the stay.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Coastal Petroleum Co.
  671 F.2d 419· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute over land title, even if hinging on navigability at statehood, was governed by state law once title passed from the federal government.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wencke
  622 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-09 ·cited 24×
  A district court, in an SEC enforcement action, has the equitable authority to issue a stay, effective against non-parties with notice, prohibiting all proceedings against receivership entities when necessary to protect the receivership estate.
• Johnson v. Kelly
  583 F.2d 1242· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine should not be extended to cases where the state is not a party to the pending state proceedings.
• Browning Debenture Holders' Comm. v. Dasa Corp.
  605 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining plaintiffs from further harassing litigation based on previously adjudicated claims.
• Puerto RICO Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Recio
  520 F.2d 1342· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case based on a perceived mandate from Younger v. Harris, rather than exercising its discretion.
• Am. Radio Ass'n v. Mobile S.S. Ass'n, Inc.
  483 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the unions' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin state court proceedings.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Three J Farms, Inc. v. Plaintiffs' Steering Comm.
  659 F.2d 1332· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-29 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not preclude an injunction against a state court action that threatened the federal court's jurisdiction and ability to effectuate its judgments in a complex, consolidated antitrust class action.
• Callie Mae Newsom v. Vanderbilt Univ.
  653 F.2d 1100· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-02 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied de novo review to the Hill-Burton Act claims and properly interpreted the regulations regarding post-1973 compliance, but that the twenty-year provision for free care obligations applied from the date of construction comple
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Cnty. OF SAN Diego & J. C. O'Connor
  495 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a general threat of enforcement, without a history of prosecution or specific immediacy, is insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court also found that a party ca
• In re Dennis Greenman Securities Litigation. Leon Namoff v. Merrill Lynch
  829 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in certifying the class action settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) because the claims sought compensatory damages and did not present a limited fund situation sufficient for such certification.
• Marlin Brown v. McCORMICK
  608 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the appellants' attorney had notice of the default judgment hearing, the complete exclusion of the appellants from a hearing where testimony was received to set remedies may raise due process concerns, but the lawyer's inaction on appeal prevents voiding
• Jones v. Wade
  479 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-30 ·cited 22×
  The court granted a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the prior panel decision.
• Sargeant v. Hall
  951 F.3d 1280· 11th Cir.· 2020-03-02 ·cited 21×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), which allows a court to order a plaintiff to pay costs of a previously dismissed action, does not apply when the plaintiff refiles the action in state court.
• Munoz v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  667 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the federal injunction because the plaintiffs were "strangers" to the state court proceedings, and the preliminary injunction was properly granted.
• Swann v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. OF Educ.
  501 F.2d 383· 4th Cir.· 1974-07-23 ·cited 21×
  The prosecution of a state court suit alleging discrimination against white students in a gifted program was properly enjoined because it could affect the Board's compliance with federal desegregation orders.
• Staffer v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc.
  878 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred enjoining state court proceedings, New York law did not permit setoffs for collateral source payments against contribution awards, and attorney fees were not warranted.
• Yonkers Racing Corp. & St. Joseph's Seminary & Coll. v. City OF Yonkers
  858 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The majority found that removal of Article 78 proceedings was authorized by the All Writs Act, despite the general and civil rights removal statutes not applying.
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. United States
  388 F.2d 511· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-24 ·cited 20×
  A criminal contempt conviction for violating a court order, even if that order is later found invalid, stands if the issuing court had jurisdiction.
• Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am. v. Richman Bros. Co.
  211 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1954-03-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 to enjoin state court proceedings in this case.
• In re Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig. Appeal of Ky. Attorney Gen.
  521 F.2d 775· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court's order restraining the Kentucky Attorney General from executing on his state court judgment was an injunction barred by the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, as it was not necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction nor expressly author
• Zajac v. Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Paul
  909 F.2d 1181· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 18×
  The Anti-Injunction Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.
• Golden v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n
  786 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court may enjoin a state court action under the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act if the issues have been fairly and fully litigated in federal court and the state action threatens to relitigate those issues.
• Stevens v. Frick
  372 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-01 ·cited 18×
  The federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless an exception applies, and no exception was demonstrated here.
• Sperry Rand Corp. v. Rothlein
  288 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's injunction, prohibiting the use of information obtained through federal discovery in a state court proceeding, did not violate 28 U.S.C. § 2283 because it was necessary to protect the court's prior discovery order and did not stay state pr
• Mfrs. Record Publ'g Co. v. Lauer
  268 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 18×
  A federal court cannot enjoin or nullify a judgment of a state's highest court, even if alleged to be erroneous, unless it was rendered without jurisdiction or in violation of due process.
• The Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. NL Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 634· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 17×
  A federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to protect its prior judgments when res judicata applies, even if the prior judgment was a consent decree and the relitigating party is a shareholder not directly party to the original suit.
• Tex. Emp'rs' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson
  820 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 17×
  The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) preempts state law claims for bad faith withholding of benefits, but the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings based on preemption alone.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  434 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that certain Mobile ordinances were facially unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth, violating First Amendment rights, and that abstention was inappropriate.
• Traughber v. Beauchane
  760 F.2d 673· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 16×
  Federal courts should not abstain from hearing a § 1983 claim challenging state attachment procedures when state remedies are inadequate or uncertain.
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
  747 F.2d 1367· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that federalism principles require according full faith and credit to state court judgments, even if the federal court disagrees with them.
• Barnette v. Honorable James H. Evans
  673 F.2d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 16×
  A bankruptcy court cannot enjoin a state criminal prosecution for theft by deception, even if a conviction would mandate restitution of a debt that might be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
• 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.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  545 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 16×
  Section 16 of the Clayton Act is an "expressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, allowing federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to protect federal antitrust claims.
• Caramico v. The Sec'y OF THE Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  509 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's order, emphasizing the need for essential fairness in administrative actions concerning tenant rights.
• Krahm v. Graham
  461 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court may enjoin pending state prosecutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if "special circumstances" demonstrate bad faith enforcement and irreparable injury, but a blanket requirement for prior adversary hearings before all future prosecutions is overbroad.
• Duncan v. Leander H. Perez, Jr.
  445 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district judge accurately applied the criteria established in Younger v. Harris for granting federal injunctive relief against state prosecutions.
• Honey v. Goodman
  432 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that § 1983 is not an exception to the prohibition in § 2283 against federal courts enjoining state proceedings.
• Taylor v. Ky. State BAR Ass'n
  424 F.2d 478· 6th Cir.· 1970-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claim for a three-judge panel, but erred in not considering the claim for federal injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Intermedics Infusaid v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Minn.
  804 F.2d 129· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction to stay state court proceedings and in staying its own proceedings, as the state court action was well-advanced and could resolve the patent validity issue.
• Shereen Ramona Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.
  861 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The court recalled its mandate and amended its prior opinion because a subsequent Supreme Court decision conflicted with its ruling on the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception regarding injunctions staying state court proceedings.