Anti-Injunction Act

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

• Thiokol Chem. Corp. v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  448 F.2d 1328· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-07 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the first suit was properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, but the second suit could proceed under certain conditions. The court also held that an injunction staying state proceedings was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  917 F.2d 1017· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 30×
  A purchaser is not bound by a state court's raze order if it does not appear of record in the chain of title, but may be bound if they had actual or inquiry notice of the order.
• Hyde Park P'rs, L.P. v. Connolly
  839 F.2d 837· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the penalty provision of the Massachusetts Takeover Bid Regulation Act likely violates the Commerce Clause, while the likelihood of success on the disclosure provision's Commerce Clause claim is uncertain.
• Dunn v. Carey
  808 F.2d 555· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not apply to requests for injunctions that might allow state or local governments to collect additional taxes, and that third parties not bound by a consent decree may litigate their claims in state court.
• Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc.
  780 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the employer's removal of the employee's breach of contract claim was proper because the claim, despite being artfully pleaded, actually arose under federal tax law. The court affirmed the dismissal of both federal and state tax withholding claims and the awar
• Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc.
  754 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the "last in time" rule of res judicata dictates that the New York District Court's order compelling arbitration was binding on the California District Court, entitling the petitioner to an order compelling arbitration.
• First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Boston v. Greenwald
  591 F.2d 417· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Massachusetts statute requiring mortgagees to pay interest on tax escrow accounts is preempted by federal law and thus inapplicable to federally-chartered savings and loan associations.
• Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.
  690 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and abstention doctrines do not bar federal injunctive relief, and the Michigan Take-Over Offers Act's enforcement provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
• Vernitron Corp. & Am. Med. Instrument Corp. v. Benjamin
  440 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 29×
  A federal court injunction staying a state court action is not warranted merely because the state court's factual determinations might have collateral estoppel effect in a federal court with exclusive jurisdiction.
• Father Nathaniel MacHesky v. Honorable William H. Bizzell
  414 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-05 ·cited 29×
• Nat'l City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp.
  687 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar an injunction against state court proceedings when federal relief is sought but not yet granted.
• Operating Eng'rs' Local # 428 Pension Tr. Fund v. Elizabeth K. Zamborsky and the Honorable Morris Rozar
  650 F.2d 196· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not pre-empt a state court order garnishing pension benefits to satisfy a spousal maintenance obligation, as such garnishments are impliedly excepted from ERISA's pre-emption and anti-alienation provisio
• In re the Tax Indebtedness of Dell W. Carlson & Robert Torres. United States v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF Colo.
  580 F.2d 1365· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) to issue ex parte orders for tax entry and seizure, and that a pre-seizure hearing is not constitutionally required in jeopardy assessment cases.
• 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.
• Black v. United States
  534 F.2d 524· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief and that the complaint failed to state a claim for damages due to lack of specificity regarding personal responsibility of officials.
• "Americans United" Inc. v. Walters
  477 F.2d 1169· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 28×
  The court did not decide the merits of the case, only that constitutional issues warranted a three-judge court.
• 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.
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
  825 F.2d 1475· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the state court judgment was not final for preclusion purposes under Alabama law and that the injunction was proper under the relitigation exception to 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.
• Marvel v. United States
  719 F.2d 1507· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that referring a civil case to a magistrate for trial with the parties' consent is statutorily and constitutionally permissible, and that tax notices addressed to a trade name are valid if the taxpayer receives actual notice.
• Lonsdale v. United States & Does 1 through 100
  919 F.2d 1440· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars suits seeking to restrain tax collection, and that the taxpayers' arguments regarding publication requirements and the validity of IRS authority were meritless.
• 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.
• United States v. Author Servs., Inc.
  804 F.2d 1520· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing and properly enforced an IRS summons with restrictions on disclosure, as the IRS demonstrated a legitimate purpose for the investigation.
• 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.
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. United States
  617 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Escrow Agreement was unambiguous, precluding parol evidence, and that Stone possessed sufficient 'property or rights to property' in the escrowed income to be subject to IRS tax levies.
• 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.
• Palaio v. Hinson McAULIFFE
  466 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 24×
  Federal courts should not intervene in state civil proceedings that are an integral part of the state's criminal law enforcement, absent special circumstances.
• 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
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jenkins
  888 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-27 ·cited 22×
  The FDIC is not entitled to an absolute priority over shareholder claims against third parties who may have contributed to a bank's failure, either by statute or federal common law.
• Al Derrickson v. City OF Danville
  845 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while a consent decree approving a voting rights settlement remains valid, the state is not precluded from prosecuting the officials who negotiated it.
• 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.
• Elinor Nelson v. Regan
  731 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the tax intercept program, as implemented, did not violate due process and that refunds attributable to the earned income credit are not subject to interception for past-due child support.
• Linn v. Chivatero
  714 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, and that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the taxpayer's claim under the Enochs exception.
• 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
• Junior Chamber OF Commerce OF Rochester, Inc. v. The United States Jaycees
  495 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the United States Jaycees' discriminatory membership policies, despite receiving federal funds and tax exemptions, do not constitute state or federal action sufficient to violate constitutional rights or civil rights statutes.
• Lloyd v. Patterson
  242 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the taxpayer's claimed financial hardship did not constitute extraordinary circumstances to overcome the statutory prohibition against enjoining tax collection.
• 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.
• Shereen Ramona Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.
  832 F.2d 1477· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that Jones Act claims cannot be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, but foreign seamen's claims can be dismissed if foreign law applies and an adequate alternative forum exists. The court also vacated an injunction against foreign seamen prosecuting state cl
• 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.