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

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

• Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster
  796 F.2d 252· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Bechtel failed to make the necessary strong showing to justify enjoining the state court action under the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc.
  713 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the Receiver had the capacity to bring suit and was the proper real party in interest, the district court abused its discretion in granting a broad stay of investors' actions due to insufficient justification.
• Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals
  695 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because federal question jurisdiction was absent and the injunction did not fall within exceptions to the anti-injunction statute.
• Ziegler v. Ziegler
  632 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the federal constitutional claim pending a state court's interpretation of a new state statute, as such interpretation might render the federal claim moot.
• Munoz v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  604 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and res judicata did not bar the federal district court from issuing a preliminary injunction against a county's enforcement of a water export restriction, as the constitutional issue was not decided in state court and the injunction ta
• Jennings v. Boenning & Co. & Boenning & Scattergood, Inc.
  482 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to restrain execution of a state court judgment, as neither the Securities Exchange Act's § 21(e) nor the Anti-Injunction Act's 'necessary in aid of jurisdiction' exception applied.
• Appalachian Volunteers, Inc. v. Clark
  432 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's remand order and dismissal of the federal action, finding that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 was limited to racial equality claims and that appellants failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal injunctive relief.
• Tyler v. Russel
  410 F.2d 490· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-02 ·cited 14×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution unless there is a clear showing of irreparable injury and no adequate remedy at law.
• Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke
  708 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit enjoining state administrative proceedings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction due to a conflict between state and federal law, but the injunction was overly br
• Helfant v. Kugler
  500 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
• Kidder v. Maxus Energy Corp. & Maxus Corporate Co.
  925 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly declared Maxus Energy and Maxus Corporate could not assert claims under the 1934 Act, but erred in exercising pendent jurisdiction over state law claims and in the scope of the injunction.
• McGOUGH v. First Arlington Nat'l Bank
  519 F.2d 552· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by staying federal proceedings when the federal claims under the Exchange Act could only be adjudicated in federal court, but affirmed the denial of a temporary restraint on the state action.
• DOE v. Ceci
  517 F.2d 1203· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-17 ·cited 12×
  A federal court may enjoin state court proceedings that interfere with or frustrate its prior judgments, even if it means enjoining a state court order, under the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2283 that allows injunctions necessary to protect or effectuate federal court judgments.
• Clean AIR Coordinating Comm. v. Roth-Adam Fuel Co.
  465 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The Federal Anti-injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless expressly authorized by Congress, and the Clean Air Act does not provide such authorization.
• United States v. Am. Soc'y OF Composers
  442 F.2d 601· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly enjoined the state court action as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction and to protect its judgments, but reversed the district court's approval of ASCAP's distribution method for a retroactive fund, remanding for development of a
• Forehand v. First Ala. Bank OF Dothan
  727 F.2d 1033· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 11×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from hearing the § 1983 claim pending resolution of state court proceedings.
• In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Shirley IVY v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co.
  996 F.2d 1425· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the removed cases under the All Writs Act to protect its prior judgment in the Agent Orange I class action. It also affirmed that plaintiffs manifesting injury after the settlement date were properly incl
• Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran
  921 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the SBA, as a federal agency, is not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, thus failing the requirements of the federal interpleader statute (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Consequently, the injunction issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 must be vacated.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  865 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm, while deferring the Anti-Injunction Act issue for further factfinding.
• In re Deist Forest Prods., Inc.
  850 F.2d 340· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the debtor (Forest Products) lacked standing to seek an injunction against the bank's suit against the guarantors because the debtor sought relief solely for the benefit of the guarantors, not for itself.
• Zalman v. Armstrong
  802 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris principles because a state criminal proceeding was pending when the federal action was filed, and no extraordinary circumstances justified federal intervention. The court vacated the district cou
• CCMS Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Dooley-Maloof, Inc.
  645 F.2d 33· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict on breach of contract and fiduciary duties, and that the trial court properly awarded damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction.
• Bank OF Heflin v. Miles
  621 F.2d 108· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly granted injunctive relief to protect its prior judgment but erred in declaring the state statute unconstitutional, as federal courts are bound by state court interpretations of state law.
• Signal Props., Inc. v. Farha
  482 F.2d 1136· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The federal court's injunction prohibiting the state court action was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2283 and must be vacated.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  304 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the claim of Illinois accountant-client privilege and in ordering compliance with the FTC subpoena, and that the district court had the power to stay state court proceedings in aid of its jurisdiction.
• Furnish v. The Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs OF the State of Cal.
  257 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-21 ·cited 10×
  The federal district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as federal courts cannot review state court decisions or enjoin state proceedings except in limited circumstances not present here.
• In re Magnus Harmonica Corp.
  237 F.2d 867· 3d Cir.· 1956-10-31 ·cited 10×
  An injunction against a state court suit against guarantors is not necessary to protect the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.
• In re Magnus Harmonica Corp.
  233 F.2d 803· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal district court improperly granted an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court, as it was not authorized by statute or necessary to aid federal jurisdiction.
• Int'l Union OF Elec. v. Underwood Corp.
  219 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1955-01-06 ·cited 10×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 unless expressly authorized by Congress or necessary in aid of its own jurisdiction, which requires the plaintiff to have a legally protected interest.
• Benita Sanchez Vda. DE Cosme v. SEA Containers, Ltd.
  874 F.2d 66· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the federal court's prior judgment did not decide the State Insurance Fund's subrogation claim, and therefore, the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply.
• Bluefield Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. John A. Anziulewicz, M.D.
  737 F.2d 405· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to enjoin the state court action under the Anti-Injunction Statute because the claims in the state action were not sufficiently identical to those litigated in federal court to warrant enjoining relitigation.
• Livingston v. Garmire
  442 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 9×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution unless the plaintiff proves great and immediate irreparable injury, and mere vagueness or overbreadth of a statute is insufficient without bad faith or harassment.
• United States Steel Corp. Plan FOR Emp. Ins. Benefits v. Musisko
  885 F.2d 1170· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The district court's injunction and declaratory judgment are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because ERISA does not expressly authorize federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings.
• Gloucester Marine Railways Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc.
  848 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The Anti-Injunction Act barred the federal district court from issuing an injunction or declaratory judgment that would stay or interfere with the enforcement of a state court judgment, even if the relief sought was framed as affecting the rights of insurers.
• Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp. v. Hartigan
  816 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly refused to enjoin the state court proceedings because the state was not bound by the prior federal decision and the Anti-Injunction Act did not mandate an injunction.
• In re Mooney Aircraft, Inc. v. Foster
  730 F.2d 367· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin tort claims against a successor corporation because the claims did not exist at the time of the bankruptcy sale and were not encompassed by the bankruptcy court's prior orders.
• In re Davis v. Sheldon
  691 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 8×
  A federal court should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions impacting bankruptcy proceedings when the state has a legitimate interest and the defendants have not demonstrated bad faith or irreparable harm.
• AD Visor, Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  640 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Berry's state court collection actions are protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and the district court abused its discretion in issuing injunctions.
• Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp.
  528 F.2d 949· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 4332, authorizes federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to effectuate federal environmental policy, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 2283 does not bar such injunctions.
• United States v. Akin
  504 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and should not have abstained from hearing the case. The McCarran Amendment does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction over water rights cases brought by the United States.
• Ungar v. Mandell
  471 F.2d 1163· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The denial of injunctive relief was affirmed, but the dismissal of the suit was reversed and remanded for further findings on collateral estoppel.
• Milner v. Colonel R. H. Burson
  470 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal intervention in state criminal prosecutions is improper unless bad faith or harassment is shown, and the district court erred by not applying this standard.
• Abernathy v. Conroy
  429 F.2d 1170· 4th Cir.· 1970-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Charleston's ordinance prohibiting parades after 8 p.m. is facially constitutional, and the South Carolina common law definition of riot is also constitutional.
• Loyd v. Stewart & Nuss, Inc.
  327 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The Bankruptcy Court lacked summary jurisdiction to determine a dispute over a fund not in the debtor's possession where the debtor's title was disputed, and the stop notice attached to a debt owed to a third party, not the debtor.
• Effie Gilmer Williamson v. The Honorable Paul Puerifoy
  316 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-29 ·cited 8×
• Anne M. Evans v. ST. Louis Hous. Auth.
  226 F.2d 750· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the complaint because federal law prohibits enjoining state court proceedings, and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Gersten v. Rundle
  833 F. Supp. 906· S.D. Fla.· 1993-09-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief because the alleged bad faith actions did not rise to the level of an imminent prosecution or infringement of constitutional rights, and federal courts should not interfere with state contempt proceed
• Am. Town Ctr. v. Hall 83 Assocs.
  912 F.2d 104· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an unsigned letter of intent for real property sale is void under the statute of frauds, but reversed the dismissal of a fraud claim for insufficient pleading. It also affirmed the denial of an injunction against state court proceedings.
• Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank & Schreiner Bancshares
  894 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court's order prohibiting foreclosure proceedings was an injunction issued in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and the Anti-Injunction Act, requiring reversal.
• Toribio Garcia v. Bauza-Salas
  862 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 7×
  A federal court cannot issue an injunction that stays or nullifies the effect of a state court proceeding or judgment, as this violates the Anti-Injunction Act.