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

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

• Gajon BAR & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly
  508 F.2d 1317· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that federal courts should not interfere with pending state court proceedings unless absolutely necessary to prevent irreparable injury to constitutional rights, and that a corporation does not possess First Amendment free speech rights.
• King v. Jones
  450 F.2d 478· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts must not interfere with state court proceedings, and parties must first seek modification or dissolution of state court orders in state court before seeking federal relief.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swift & Co.
  233 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1956-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceeding due to the prohibition in 28 U.S.C. § 2283, as the Board failed to meet any of the statutory exceptions.
• Class v. City OF Seattle
  955 F.2d 1268· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreements and allocation plan, finding that the trustee had the authority to bind bondholders and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
• McDOUGAL v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  942 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that California's one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The court reversed dismissal of the inverse condemnation claim, finding that a legitimate regulatory purpose do
• In re William Michael Fussell f/d/b/a F-V Ranch and Julia White Fussell v. Karen Price as Dist. Attorney of Shelby Cnty.
  928 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A bankruptcy court may enjoin a state criminal proceeding only if the requisites of both Younger v. Harris and the Anti-Injunction Act are met, including the identification of a federally protected right threatened by the prosecution.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. State
  929 F.2d 1532· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim of federal preemption does not fall within the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, and thus the district court erred in enjoining the state prosecution based on preemption alone.
• Total Plan Servs., Inc. v. Tex. Retailers Ass'n, Inc.
  925 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The federal district court correctly dismissed the complaint because the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings, even when federal law may preempt the state claims.
• The Coastal Corp. v. Tex. E. Corp.
  869 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 6×
  An injunction procured by material misrepresentation may not be sustained, and a district court cannot dissolve its own injunction once an appeal has been filed, except to maintain the status quo.
• Vill. OF Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utils. Co. OF Ill.
  864 F.2d 481· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 6×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings to enforce a consent decree, even if the decree might violate the Sherman Act, because the antitrust laws do not expressly authorize such injunctions and the state proceedings are not a 'sham litigation' designed solely to imp
• State OF Tex. v. United States
  837 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked authority to enjoin state court proceedings because the state action did not threaten the federal court's jurisdiction over the administrative appeal.
• James v. Bellotti
  733 F.2d 989· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the case was improvidently removed because the complaint did not establish federal question jurisdiction, and therefore must be remanded to state court.
• LOS Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. The City OF Oakland
  717 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-29 ·cited 6×
  A federal court lacks authority under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to enjoin an ongoing state court eminent domain action, absent a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims or grave abuse of state courts.
• North v. Budig
  637 F.2d 246· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 6×
  The district court should have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction under the Pullman abstention doctrine, and its injunctive orders restraining the state court were improper.
• Meridian Investing & Dev. Corp. v. Suncoast Highland Corp.
  628 F.2d 370· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying Meridian's motions for injunctions, as state courts cannot enjoin federal in personam actions and federal courts can enjoin state relitigation of adjudicated issues.
• Walker v. Wegner
  624 F.2d 60· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris is not appropriate because the administrative proceeding cannot resolve the constitutional claims and requiring exhaustion would cause undue delay and prior restraint.
• Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Union Camp Corp.
  613 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a permanent injunction was proper to prevent re-litigation of issues decided in a prior federal diversity case, as the prior federal decision was res judicata and collateral estoppel applied.
• Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Balbin
  591 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court may not decline to exercise jurisdiction over an interpleader action simply because a state court action is pending, especially when state certification procedures are available for resolving state law issues.
• Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. OF Peoria
  574 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1978-03-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Clayton Act, as interpreted by Vendo, does not authorize federal injunctions against state court judgments unless the state proceedings constitute a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims.
• Armstrong v. Maple Leaf Apts., Ltd.
  508 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court injunction should have been issued to prohibit Oklahoma probate court proceedings seeking retroactive approval of a deed from an Indian grantor, as the state court cannot approve a conveyance over the grantor's objection.
• Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Posey
  486 F.2d 739· 10th Cir.· 1973-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant could not enjoin state court judgments based on a subsequently decided constitutional challenge to the replevin statute, nor could it seek protection of a prior federal judgment that did not address the validity of state claims.
• Pac. Indem. Co. v. Acel Delivery Serv., Inc.
  432 F.2d 952· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 6×
• McLUCAS v. Honorable Aaron J. Palmer
  427 F.2d 239· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-21 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, even through declaratory judgment.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Seahawk Deep Ocean Tech., Inc.
  74 F. Supp. 2d 1188· M.D. Fla.· 1999-10-07 ·cited 5×
  The court denied Seahawk's motion for reconsideration, affirming that it could not enjoin state court proceedings because the individual defendants were not bound by the prior federal judgment and the Anti-Injunction Act's exceptions did not apply.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• United States v. Kenny
  462 F.2d 1230· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 5×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a state court prosecution based on a claim of immunity granted under federal law, as the defendant can assert such immunity as a defense in the state proceedings.
• Gross v. Barnett Banks, Inc.
  934 F. Supp. 1340· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining state court proceedings that sought to relitigate claims already resolved by a federal class action settlement, and that the movant was not entitled to relief from the judgment due to inadequate notice.
• Royal Ins. Co. OF Am. & Royal Lloyds of Tex. v. Quinn-L Cap. Corp.
  960 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act justified enjoining the investors' direct contractual claims, but the aid of jurisdiction exception did not justify enjoining their assignee claims. The court also affirmed ancillary jurisdiction over the c
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran
  959 F.2d 634· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 4×
  A federal court should not interfere with ongoing state litigation by issuing an injunction, especially when the litigant has an adequate remedy through appeal after a final judgment.
• W. Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa
  958 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act permits enjoining state court proceedings barred by res judicata, not just issues actually litigated, and that sanctions for vexatious litigation require an appropriate hearing.
• Claughton v. Donner
  771 F. Supp. 1200· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, thus granting the motions to dismiss.
• G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. v. Ira Adler
  845 F.2d 899· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction under the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act.
• In re Fed. Shopping WAY, Inc. v. Owners OF NW 20 Real Est.
  717 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act to enjoin state court proceedings to quiet title to real property that was no longer in the bankruptcy court's possession and as to which title had not been adjudicated.
• Zarko Sekerez v. Supreme Court OF Ind.
  685 F.2d 202· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings against an attorney when the state has a sufficient interest and the proceedings provide an opportunity to raise constitutional claims, absent bad faith or harassment.
• Jureczki v. The City OF Seabrook
  668 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without an adequate hearing and without considering the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine after state proceedings had concluded.
• Harald Schleiffer v. Meyers
  644 F.2d 656· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 4×
  A child under eleven does not possess an independent constitutional right to override a custodial parent's decision regarding relocation.
• Mitchum v. State
  237 So. 2d 72· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-06-17 ·cited 4×
  A Florida state appellate court rejected an attempt by obscenity merchants to stay a state court injunction by obtaining a conflicting federal court order restraining state court enforcement. The court held that the Federal Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2283) prohibited the
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A1 Schertzer & Philip Gorenstein
  360 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-03 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin state garnishment proceedings that interfere with the enforcement of National Labor Relations Board back pay orders, as such injunctions are necessary in aid of the court's jurisdiction and to protect its judgments.
• Collins v. Laclede GAS Co.
  237 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1956-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay state court proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2283, absent express statutory authorization or necessity to protect federal jurisdiction or judgments.
• Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  796 F. Supp. 1491· M.D. Fla.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority to enjoin state court and administrative proceedings that interfere with its prior desegregation orders, even if those proceedings involve state law claims or procedural objections.
• Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc.
  916 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 3×
  A federal court injunction barring a party from prosecuting a state court action violates the Anti-Injunction Act unless one of the Act's express exceptions applies.
• United States v. Certified Indus., Inc.
  361 F.2d 857· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the substitution of a bond for a mechanic's lien did not fundamentally alter the nature of the state court's in rem foreclosure action, thus the federal court could not enjoin the state proceedings.
• Bank of Am., N.A. v. McCann
  444 F. Supp. 2d 1227· N.D. Fla.· 2006-08-14 ·cited 2×
  Qui tam relators, lacking specific state authorization beyond their role in filing lawsuits, are not 'lawfully authorized State auditors and examiners' and thus cannot conduct visitations or examine national bank records under 12 U.S.C. § 484(b).
• Wolfe v. Safecard Servs., Inc.
  873 F. Supp. 648· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet the requirements for an injunction to stay state court proceedings, as he did not demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of an adequate remedy at law, and the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act did not clearly a
• Allstate Ins. v. Preston
  842 F. Supp. 1441· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while continued state court litigation after removal is improper, a federal court cannot enjoin such proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and the relitigation exception does not apply to a dismissal without prejudice.
• SMA Life Assurance Co. v. Sanchez-Pica
  960 F.2d 274· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief to prevent a local administrative agency from proceeding, despite a prior federal default judgment.
• Brown v. Vasquez
  952 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 2×
  A district court has jurisdiction to stay the execution of a state prisoner to appoint counsel to assist in preparing a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Victa
  936 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enjoin state court proceedings, as federal courts should generally defer to state courts' ability to resolve disputes.
• LCS Servs., Inc. v. Hamrick
  925 F.2d 745· 4th Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The district court's injunction against state court proceedings violated the Anti-Injunction Act because the issues in the state actions had not been previously decided by the federal court.
• Amwest Mortg. Corp. v. Grady
  925 F.2d 1162· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction to stay state court proceedings because the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act was not met.