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

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

• Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp. v. City OF W. Chicago
  914 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a municipal ordinance that on its face targets only health and safety hazards unrelated to radiation hazards, and that Kerr-McGee stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce its federal rights under the AEA
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Smith Plumbing Co., Inc.
  856 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against a state court proceeding, as the state court had jurisdiction over the surety and the injunction improperly anticipated future disputes and infringed on federal policy.
• Krey Packing Co. v. Hamilton
  572 F.2d 1280· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-11 ·cited 2×
  A federal court may not enjoin state court proceedings to enforce an arbitrator's award under the Labor Management Relations Act, as state courts have concurrent jurisdiction and such an injunction is not necessary in aid of federal jurisdiction.
• Fred and Dorothy Joiner v. City OF Dallas
  488 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an exception to the anti-injunction statute, granting federal courts jurisdiction to enjoin state proceedings when property rights are at issue. The court also found that federal courts should consider injunction claims under Younger
• Buie v. Pigott
  439 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal injunctions against state proceedings.
• Hilliard v. Commonwealth OF Pa. acting
  438 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-04 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state eminent domain proceedings, even if the landowners claim unconstitutional rulings have already been made in the state action.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.
  434 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1970-12-02 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 unless an express statutory exception applies, and the National Labor Relations Board, as an agency, is subject to this prohibition.
• Mistkot v. Wade
  433 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the pro se application to enjoin state court proceedings, as federal intervention was inappropriate under the circumstances and statutory limitations.
• Bhargave v. Genesee Reg'l Bank
  2014 WL 2003120· M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a plaintiff seeking to enjoin state foreclosure proceedings must demonstrate that the injunction falls within one of the three narrow exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, which the plaintiff failed to do.
• Grant v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and therefore denied the motion for an emergency stay and dismissed the complaint.
• Sounds of Serv. Radio v. Islamorada
  344 F. Supp. 2d 1376· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-05 ·cited 1×
  Sounds of Service Radio sought a preliminary injunction to stop state court proceedings between itself and G & G Trading, Inc., but the federal district court denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice because the federal court lacked authority under the Anti-Injunct
• Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  816 F. Supp. 714· M.D. Fla.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that an action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 constitutes an express exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, granting the court authority to enjoin state proceedings.
• Aucoin v. Santopadre, Sr.
  937 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 1×
  A successor bank did not assume unliquidated litigation liabilities of an insolvent predecessor bank under federal law, and a federal court judgment on property ownership precludes relitigation in state court.
• Paisey v. Vitale
  634 F. Supp. 741· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that injunctive relief against the state court judge and the state defamation action is barred by judicial immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act, but a claim for damages based on retaliation under Title VI may proceed.
• L.M.E., Inc. v. City of Hollywood
  605 F. Supp. 185· S.D. Fla.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the granting of a coastal construction permit to the City of Hollywood, finding that the developer, Woodholly Associates, Inc., properly raised the issue of the City's burden to prove the necessity and justification for the development.
• Lutricia Lushan Brown Allen v. State
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-02
  The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint and denying her emergency demand for a preliminary injunction.
• Valery Kantsepolsky v. River Shores Ass'n, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-10
  The Anti-Injunction Act bars federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless specific exceptions apply, and neither the FHA nor the ADA provide such an exception for this case.
• Martin v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir. Court
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-22
  A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and principles of comity and federalism require respect for state judicial systems.
• Mesadieu v. Waters
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-07
  The court denied all of the plaintiff's emergency motions seeking federal intervention in state family court proceedings.
• Chubboy v. Chubboy
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-18
  The court held that the judges named as defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and the remaining claims are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and Younger abstention doctrine.
• Kincaid v. Sommerfield
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-28
  The court held that federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act and must abstain under the Younger doctrine when asked to intervene in ongoing state matters.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cereceda
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-16
  The court held that an injunction under the All Writs Act is not warranted to prohibit defendants from filing future state court proceedings because it is not necessary to safeguard the court's jurisdiction.
• Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-04
  The court held that a request for an injunction to stay a state foreclosure sale was denied because the plaintiff failed to meet procedural requirements and demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and because the Anti-Injunction Act barred such relief.
• U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-12-02
  The court held that a motion for relief from a monetary judgment for past wrongdoing cannot be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) as it does not have prospective effect, and financial hardship alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances for relief unde
• Fla. Software Sys., Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
  2000 WL 343245· M.D. Fla.· 2000-03-31
  The court denied the construed motion to enjoin state court proceedings and the emergency motion for a case management conference, citing the Anti-Injunction Act and prior scheduling orders. The court also warned parties about excessive motion filings and potential Rule 11 sancti
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Seahawk Deep Ocean Tech., Inc.
  54 F. Supp. 2d 1297· M.D. Fla.· 1999-06-23
  The court denied Seahawk's motion for an injunction, finding that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibited enjoining the state court indemnification action.
• United States v. Gilbert
  89 F. Supp. 553· M.D. Fla.· 1997-06-17
• Kanouse v. Gunster
  168 B.R. 441· S.D. Fla.· 1994-06-08
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Kanouse was not entitled to relief under 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) because he was not a debtor or former debtor at the time of the alleged discrimination. The court also denied Gunster's petition for an in
• Huguley v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  999 F.2d 142· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction, holding that the prior consent decree in Huguley v. General Motors Corp. had preclusive effect and barred Abbie Perry's subsequent race discrimination claims.
• In the Matter of: L & S Indus.
  989 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-24
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's dismissal of claims against L & S Industries did not preclude the Stefans from asserting those claims in state court because there was no privity between them and the bankruptcy trustee. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's dec
• CASA Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court OF Puerto RICO for the Dist. OF Arecibo
  988 F.2d 252· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-09
  The court held that the section 1983 claims failed due to lack of state action and that the Fair Housing Act claims should not have been entertained by the federal district court due to the Anti-Injunction Act and Younger abstention. The federal district court improperly enjoined
• DOE v. Allied-Signal, Inc.
  985 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-09
  A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to remove a state court action solely to protect a prior federal judgment based on state law.
• Empire Blue Cross AND Blue Shield v. Janet Greeson's A Place FOR US, Inc.
  985 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-02
  A federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay arbitration proceedings ordered by a state court, as such an order constitutes a state court proceeding protected by the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Blalock Eddy Ranch & Crystalaire Country Club Ests. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp.
  982 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-23
  An injunction restraining state eminent domain proceedings violates the Anti-Injunction Act when the prior federal judgment did not actually decide the issues raised in the state action and thus cannot create a conflict or be a res judicata bar.
• The 1975 Salaried Ret. Plan FOR Eligible Emps. OF Crucible, Inc. v. Nobers
  968 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-06
  The court held that even though a state court action may be preempted by ERISA and fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction, this does not automatically satisfy the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, allowing federal courts to enjoin state proceedings.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  965 F.2d 538· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-24
  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the Anti-Injunction Act barred Pelfresne's attempt to enjoin the state court's raze order because Pelfresne had constructive notice of the order and was not a good faith purchaser under Wisconsin law.
• Acli Gov't Sec., Inc. v. Rhoades
  963 F.2d 530· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-06
  The court held that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applied to most of the state actions because the issues had been decided in federal court, but reversed the stay as to Advest in the first state action and limited the scope of the stay in the third state a
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd.
  940 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-06
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to assert jurisdiction over United Tote, as such review is limited to courts of appeals.
• Blunt v. Hlavinka
  896 F.2d 240· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-16
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar state court proceedings for breach of contract and negligence claims, as these were outside the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's jurisdiction. However, an injunction was granted to prevent relitigation of fraud claims
• Md. Cas. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co.
  889 F.2d 1231· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-27
  The court affirmed the magistrate's denial of an injunction, finding no clear error or abuse of discretion.
• D-1 Enters., Inc. v. Commercial State Bank
  852 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-18
  The court held that neither res judicata nor compulsory counterclaim rules apply to "contested matters" in bankruptcy, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Weir Ex Rel. Weir v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.
  586 F. Supp. 63· S.D. Fla.· 1984-05-15
  The court held that a private right of action does not exist under NYSE Rule 405, but federal securities claims for fraud and churning were adequately pleaded and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Wyo. & Ex'r of the Est. of Myrtle M. Forbes v. Lawing
  731 F.2d 680· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-06
  The federal court erred in issuing a stay of state proceedings and in finding that the Tennessee court's determination of personal jurisdiction was not entitled to full faith and credit.
• The Bd. OF Elec. Light Comm'rs OF the City OF Burlington v. McCARREN
  725 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-30
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment, finding that the Federal Power Act preempts state regulation of hydroelectric projects licensed by FERC and that the state board was precluded from relitigating issues already decided.
• Pietzsch v. Mattox
  719 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-10
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from judgment on the constitutionality of the Texas statutes.
• Palmer v. Schneider
  699 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-04
  The court held that federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings absent specific exceptions, and no such exceptions applied here.
• Cadena v. Perasso
  498 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-28
  A judge is immune from civil liability for acts committed in their judicial capacity, and injunctive relief is inappropriate when adequate legal remedies exist.
• United States v. City OF NEW Haven
  496 F.2d 452· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-02
  The court held that state court orders attempting to regulate navigable airspace, even if based on state law, are preempted by federal law and unenforceable.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Harris
  490 F.2d 572· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-09
  The court held that the district court improvidently granted injunctions staying enforcement of Oklahoma's liquor laws against Amtrak and intervenors, and that the appeal in one case was moot.
• Lewis v. Tex. Power & Light Co.
  462 F.2d 1318· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-10