Anti-Injunction Act

472 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.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  660 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 89×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings that the acquisition and non-compete covenants did not violate antitrust laws, upholding the standard of review for factual findings.
• 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.
• Gilbert v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  765 F.2d 320· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 76×
  An employer's unfunded severance pay policy constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA, and state law claims related to such a plan are preempted.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Levy v. Lewis
  635 F.2d 960· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 55×
  The court concurred in the result, abstaining from exercising concurrent federal jurisdiction over an ERISA claim due to exceptional circumstances warranting abstention under the Colorado River doctrine, as a state court was already comprehensively adjudicating related rights.
• 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
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Co.
  546 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Koehring was liable to Hyde for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, affirming the trial court's finding with modifications to damages. The court reversed the lower court's finding that Koehring was not liable to Dunn, holding Koehring liable for abuse
• E. Ky. Welf. Rights Org. v. Simon
  506 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-09 ·cited 48×
  Revenue Ruling 69-545 was invalid because it was issued without compliance with the informal rulemaking procedures required by Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Tierney v. City OF Toledo
  824 F.2d 1497· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 37×
  A union's agency shop plan must provide constitutionally adequate procedures before non-members can be compelled to pay service fees, including advance reduction of potentially ideological expenses and an impartial arbitration process.
• United States v. Zolin
  809 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court did not err in compelling production of some documents, denying production of others, finding the summons was issued in good faith, and restricting IRS disclosure. The court also affirmed the waiver of privilege for certain documents and the
• Ealy v. Talmadge Littlejohn
  569 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 37×
• Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett
  908 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief for tax years 1974-1979 due to proper notice, and for 1981-1982 due to lack of sufficient grounds for equitable relief. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to state a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C.
• United States v. Huckabee Auto CO„
  783 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the IRS from collecting a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 from corporate officers, as their liability is separate from the corporate debtor's.
• 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.
• Christian Coal. OF Fla., Inc. v. United States
  662 F.3d 1182· 11th Cir.· 2011-11-15 ·cited 34×
  Christian Coalition of Florida sought a tax refund of $261 for tax years 1991 and 1994–2000, claiming it qualified for tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. After CC-FL filed suit, the IRS refunded the full amount based on the expiration
• 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.
• Gattuso v. Pecorella
  733 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the taxpayers' challenge to tax assessments and that their claim that wages are not income is frivolous.
• 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.
• Aqua BAR & Lounge, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Treas. Internal Revenue Serv. & Joseph B. Saltz
  539 F.2d 935· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-07 ·cited 32×
  A taxpayer whose property has been seized and sold for non-payment of federal taxes may bring suit against the United States to quiet title, provided the taxpayer refrains from contesting the merits of the underlying tax assessment.
• Brittingham v. United States Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  451 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the application for a writ of mandatory relief because it lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• 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
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• In re Bostwick v. United States
  521 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-01 ·cited 31×
  The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of tax debts and to enjoin the collection of those taxes, even if the United States has not filed a proof of claim, as the Bankruptcy Act overrides general statutes like the anti-injunction act and the Declar
• 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.