Anti-Injunction Act

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

• Swann v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. OF Educ.
  501 F.2d 383· 4th Cir.· 1974-07-23 ·cited 21×
  The prosecution of a state court suit alleging discrimination against white students in a gifted program was properly enjoined because it could affect the Board's compliance with federal desegregation orders.
• Staffer v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc.
  878 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred enjoining state court proceedings, New York law did not permit setoffs for collateral source payments against contribution awards, and attorney fees were not warranted.
• Yonkers Racing Corp. & St. Joseph's Seminary & Coll. v. City OF Yonkers
  858 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The majority found that removal of Article 78 proceedings was authorized by the All Writs Act, despite the general and civil rights removal statutes not applying.
• EMI Ltd. v. Bennett
  738 F.2d 994· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 20×
  A foreign parent corporation (EMI) lacks standing to challenge a state tax assessment against its domestic subsidiary (Capitol), as the injury is to the corporation, not directly to the shareholder.
• Lewis v. Sandler
  498 F.2d 395· 4th Cir.· 1974-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act, the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the failure to file an administrative claim for refund barred the action.
• Pietsch v. The President of the United States
  434 F.2d 861· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the taxpayer's suit to restrain tax collection was barred by statute, and his contempt conviction was reversed due to procedural defects in the contempt order.
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. United States
  388 F.2d 511· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-24 ·cited 20×
  A criminal contempt conviction for violating a court order, even if that order is later found invalid, stands if the issuing court had jurisdiction.
• Ersa, Inc. v. Dudley
  234 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal tax liens attached to personal property before the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's lien became choate, making the federal liens prior.
• Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am. v. Richman Bros. Co.
  211 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1954-03-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 to enjoin state court proceedings in this case.
• McCARTY v. United States
  929 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a taxpayer can use 28 U.S.C. § 2410 to challenge the procedural validity of a federal tax lien, but not the merits of the underlying tax assessment. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the government.
• Nat'l Commodity & Barter Ass'n v. Gibbs
  886 F.2d 1240· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that claims against federal officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity, and Bivens claims for Fifth Amendment violations are inappropriate due to existing statutory remedies, but First and Fourth Amendment Bivens claims may proceed with
• Pasquale Laino and Minerva Laino v. United States
  633 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars a suit to restrain tax collection when the taxpayer has failed to petition the Tax Court for redetermination of a deficiency and has not demonstrated that the government could not prevail on the merits.
• Zajac v. Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Paul
  909 F.2d 1181· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 18×
  The Anti-Injunction Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.
• Golden v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n
  786 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court may enjoin a state court action under the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act if the issues have been fairly and fully litigated in federal court and the state action threatens to relitigate those issues.
• Zernial v. United States
  714 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, primarily due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act and for failure to state a claim on frivolous grounds.
• Inv. Annuity, Inc. v. W. Michael Blumenthal as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
  609 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act bar the district court's relief, as the suit's purpose was to restrain tax collection.
• Constr. Aggregates Corp. v. de Vicenty
  573 F.2d 86· 1st Cir.· 1978-03-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from hearing the claim regarding non-local seamen, but correctly abstained from hearing claims regarding local seamen's rates and shore workers.
• Sperry Rand Corp. v. Rothlein
  288 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's injunction, prohibiting the use of information obtained through federal discovery in a state court proceeding, did not violate 28 U.S.C. § 2283 because it was necessary to protect the court's prior discovery order and did not stay state pr
• Mfrs. Record Publ'g Co. v. Lauer
  268 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 18×
  A federal court cannot enjoin or nullify a judgment of a state's highest court, even if alleged to be erroneous, unless it was rendered without jurisdiction or in violation of due process.
• Avi Nakash v. Georges Marciano
  882 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying federal proceedings under the Colorado River doctrine, and that the Anti-Injunction Act did not require an injunction against state proceedings due to a prior California appellate court ruling on precl
• The Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. NL Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 634· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 17×
  A federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to protect its prior judgments when res judicata applies, even if the prior judgment was a consent decree and the relitigating party is a shareholder not directly party to the original suit.
• Tex. Emp'rs' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson
  820 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 17×
  The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) preempts state law claims for bad faith withholding of benefits, but the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings based on preemption alone.
• In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. v. Rubin Schron
  873 F.3d 1325· 11th Cir.· 2017-10-19 ·cited 16×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against real-estate investor Rubin Schron in a complex bankruptcy adversary proceeding arising from a "bust-out" scheme in which nursing-home operators transferred assets to judgment-proof entities to evade liability for $
• Paisey v. Honorable Linda L. Vitale
  807 F.2d 889· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that merely filing a state court action, even if retaliatory, does not constitute "under color of state law" for a Section 1983 claim, and thus the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief.
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
  747 F.2d 1367· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that federalism principles require according full faith and credit to state court judgments, even if the federal court disagrees with them.
• Barnette v. Honorable James H. Evans
  673 F.2d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 16×
  A bankruptcy court cannot enjoin a state criminal prosecution for theft by deception, even if a conviction would mandate restitution of a debt that might be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
• A Bonding Co. v. Sunnuck
  629 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 16×
  The Tax Injunction Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain suits seeking to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  545 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 16×
  Section 16 of the Clayton Act is an "expressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, allowing federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to protect federal antitrust claims.
• Caramico v. The Sec'y OF THE Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  509 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's order, emphasizing the need for essential fairness in administrative actions concerning tenant rights.
• Krahm v. Graham
  461 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court may enjoin pending state prosecutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if "special circumstances" demonstrate bad faith enforcement and irreparable injury, but a blanket requirement for prior adversary hearings before all future prosecutions is overbroad.
• Duncan v. Leander H. Perez, Jr.
  445 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district judge accurately applied the criteria established in Younger v. Harris for granting federal injunctive relief against state prosecutions.
• Honey v. Goodman
  432 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that § 1983 is not an exception to the prohibition in § 2283 against federal courts enjoining state proceedings.
• Intermedics Infusaid v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Minn.
  804 F.2d 129· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction to stay state court proceedings and in staying its own proceedings, as the state court action was well-advanced and could resolve the patent validity issue.
• United States v. Dist. OF Columbia
  654 F.2d 802· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 15×
  The district court's orders compelling funding, enjoining state proceedings, and enforcing a sludge disposal plan did not violate the Tenth Amendment or the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Licavoli v. Nixon
  312 F.2d 200· 6th Cir.· 1963-01-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the taxpayers' suit to enjoin the collection of taxes was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, as the Government's claim was not so clearly without merit as to fall within the narrow exception for equitable jurisdiction.
• Robinson v. United States
  920 F.2d 1157· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) to quiet title against an IRS lien is permissible when the IRS's procedural error, such as failing to send a notice of deficiency, blocks the taxpayer's access to the Tax Court, even if the underlying tax liability is not dispu
• Lancellotti v. Honorable Thomas F. FAY
  909 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a subjective good faith standard to determine Rule 11 sanctions, and that an objective standard of reasonable inquiry must be applied.
• Shereen Ramona Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.
  861 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The court recalled its mandate and amended its prior opinion because a subsequent Supreme Court decision conflicted with its ruling on the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception regarding injunctions staying state court proceedings.
• 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.
• Mid-South Music Corp. v. Kolak
  756 F.2d 23· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a constitutional claim for deprivation of property and that the United States is the exclusive defendant for statutory violations of tax return disclosure rules, but reversed dismissal of the statutory claim against the U.S. for f
• 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.
• United States v. The Composite State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  656 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should abstain from enjoining the state proceedings due to a lack of clear irreparable injury.
• Kemlon Prods. & Dev. Co. v. United States
  638 F.2d 1315· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the injunction because the taxpayer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the government showed a likelihood of prevailing on its right to disclose information for tax investigation.
• 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.
• City Investing Co. & GDV, Inc. v. Simcox
  633 F.2d 56· 7th Cir.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining under the Pullman doctrine, as a state court's interpretation of the Indiana Takeover Act could moot the federal constitutional claims.
• 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
• Koch v. Alexander
  561 F.2d 1115· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The filing of an amended tax return showing zero liability does not render the originally assessed tax a 'deficiency' for purposes of enjoining collection under the Anti-Injunction Act.
• 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.