Anti-Injunction Act

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

• In re Real Est. Title & Settlement Servs. Antitrust Litig. Appeal of Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. & Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1
  869 F.2d 760· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a district court cannot enjoin absent class members from pursuing state court actions if they lack minimum contacts with the forum and did not consent to jurisdiction, especially when they were denied the opportunity to opt out of a hybrid class action involvi
• Flynn v. United States
  786 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to admit parol evidence regarding the taxpayer's waiver of notice of deficiency and that the taxpayer may be entitled to injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) if a waiver is not established and equitable grounds exist
• Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke
  708 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit enjoining state administrative proceedings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction due to a conflict between state and federal law, but the injunction was overly br
• Rosenblum v. United States
  549 F.2d 1140· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action because the taxpayers' constitutional claim regarding denial of counsel due to seizure of funds must be raised in the Tax Court, and the law firm's claim for wrongful levy under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 was not support
• United States v. Mellon Bank
  521 F.2d 708· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not divest the district court of jurisdiction over counterclaims when the court has jurisdiction over an enforcement petition filed by the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7402.
• Helfant v. Kugler
  500 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
• Est. OF Kyle Thomas Brennan v. Church OF Scientology Flag Serv. Org., Inc.
  645 F.3d 1267· 11th Cir.· 2011-07-07 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a federal district court's permanent injunction prohibiting a Florida state court from sanctioning an attorney for continuing to represent the Brennan Estate in a wrongful death action against the Church of Scientology. The district court had enjoine
• Kidder v. Maxus Energy Corp. & Maxus Corporate Co.
  925 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly declared Maxus Energy and Maxus Corporate could not assert claims under the 1934 Act, but erred in exercising pendent jurisdiction over state law claims and in the scope of the injunction.
• Picco v. Global Marine Drilling Co.
  900 F.2d 846· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by setting aside a prior forum non conveniens dismissal based on the automatic stay and a subsequent change in law, as the stay did not divest jurisdiction and the change in law did not constitute extraordinary circumst
• United States v. Anderson Cnty.
  705 F.2d 184· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that abstention under Pullman and Younger doctrines was inappropriate because the interpretation of the contract and the constitutionality of the tax presented federal questions, and the relevant state tax statutes were unambiguous.
• McGOUGH v. First Arlington Nat'l Bank
  519 F.2d 552· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by staying federal proceedings when the federal claims under the Exchange Act could only be adjudicated in federal court, but affirmed the denial of a temporary restraint on the state action.
• DOE v. Ceci
  517 F.2d 1203· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-17 ·cited 12×
  A federal court may enjoin state court proceedings that interfere with or frustrate its prior judgments, even if it means enjoining a state court order, under the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2283 that allows injunctions necessary to protect or effectuate federal court judgments.
• Cattle Feeders TAX Comm. v. Hon. George Shultz
  504 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars this suit because the government can ultimately prevail and there is no basis for equity jurisdiction.
• United States v. Am. Soc'y OF Composers
  442 F.2d 601· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly enjoined the state court action as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction and to protect its judgments, but reversed the district court's approval of ASCAP's distribution method for a retroactive fund, remanding for development of a
• Giles E. Bullock and Katherine D. Bullock v. Latham
  306 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear cases where a non-taxpayer's property is seized to satisfy another's tax liability, even when the Declaratory Judgment Act and anti-injunction statutes might otherwise apply.
• Hughes v. United States
  953 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims for injunctive and declaratory relief due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, and properly granted summary judgment on damages claims.
• Forehand v. First Ala. Bank OF Dothan
  727 F.2d 1033· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 11×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from hearing the § 1983 claim pending resolution of state court proceedings.
• James P. Kartell, M.D. v. Blue Shield OF Mass., Inc.
  592 F.2d 1191· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 11×
  The court held that abstention was appropriate pending resolution of complex state law questions by Massachusetts courts, as these questions were critical to the federal antitrust claims and involved substantial public policy concerns.
• Singleton v. Mathis
  284 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1960-12-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the actions could not be maintained because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to overcome the statutory prohibition against enjoining tax collection.
• Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs
  891 F. Supp. 1548· N.D. Fla.· 1995-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or a violation of clearly established constitutional law, and the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
• In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Shirley IVY v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co.
  996 F.2d 1425· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the removed cases under the All Writs Act to protect its prior judgment in the Agent Orange I class action. It also affirmed that plaintiffs manifesting injury after the settlement date were properly incl
• Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran
  921 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the SBA, as a federal agency, is not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, thus failing the requirements of the federal interpleader statute (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Consequently, the injunction issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 must be vacated.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  865 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm, while deferring the Anti-Injunction Act issue for further factfinding.
• In re Deist Forest Prods., Inc.
  850 F.2d 340· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the debtor (Forest Products) lacked standing to seek an injunction against the bank's suit against the guarantors because the debtor sought relief solely for the benefit of the guarantors, not for itself.
• Lowrie v. United States
  824 F.2d 827· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit against the IRS for return of records when the purpose was to avoid tax liability, and reversed the judgment against the FBI as they no longer possessed the records.
• Zalman v. Armstrong
  802 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris principles because a state criminal proceeding was pending when the federal action was filed, and no extraordinary circumstances justified federal intervention. The court vacated the district cou
• Cardwell v. Kurtz
  765 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the fraud, deceit, and trickery claim because disputed facts regarding IRS agent misrepresentations required a trial, and that the government's position was not substantially justified, entitling plainti
• Hansen v. United States
  744 F.2d 658· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act, as the appellants failed to meet the criteria for a judicial exception.
• Edgar v. Inland Steel Co.
  744 F.2d 1276· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 10×
  Employees cannot sue their employer for withholding federal income taxes, nor can they recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken under federal law.
• Perlowin v. Sassi
  711 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the termination assessment was invalid due to the IRS's failure to issue a timely notice of deficiency, injunctive relief was not automatically granted and required a showing of irreparable harm and lack of adequate legal remedy.
• CCMS Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Dooley-Maloof, Inc.
  645 F.2d 33· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict on breach of contract and fiduciary duties, and that the trial court properly awarded damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction.
• Bank OF Heflin v. Miles
  621 F.2d 108· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly granted injunctive relief to protect its prior judgment but erred in declaring the state statute unconstitutional, as federal courts are bound by state court interpretations of state law.
• Armantrout v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  570 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 10×
  Parents are taxable on educational benefits provided to their children through an employer-sponsored plan, as these benefits constitute compensation for services rendered by the parents.
• United States v. Mellon Bank
  545 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 10×
  A district court's order staying civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings is not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and extraordinary writs are not warranted absent a clear abuse of discretion.
• Glenn v. Reubin O'D. Askew
  513 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellee failed to exhaust his state court remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Laing v. United States
  496 F.2d 853· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment regarding federal tax assessment and levy.
• Signal Props., Inc. v. Farha
  482 F.2d 1136· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The federal court's injunction prohibiting the state court action was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2283 and must be vacated.
• Kinney v. Harlow F. Lenon
  447 F.2d 596· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin state court proceedings, even for juveniles, due to principles of comity and federalism, and that a claim for a declaratory judgment is also subject to these equitable principles.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  304 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the claim of Illinois accountant-client privilege and in ordering compliance with the FTC subpoena, and that the district court had the power to stay state court proceedings in aid of its jurisdiction.
• Furnish v. The Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs OF the State of Cal.
  257 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-21 ·cited 10×
  The federal district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as federal courts cannot review state court decisions or enjoin state proceedings except in limited circumstances not present here.
• In re Magnus Harmonica Corp.
  237 F.2d 867· 3d Cir.· 1956-10-31 ·cited 10×
  An injunction against a state court suit against guarantors is not necessary to protect the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.
• In re Magnus Harmonica Corp.
  233 F.2d 803· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal district court improperly granted an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court, as it was not authorized by statute or necessary to aid federal jurisdiction.
• Int'l Union OF Elec. v. Underwood Corp.
  219 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1955-01-06 ·cited 10×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 unless expressly authorized by Congress or necessary in aid of its own jurisdiction, which requires the plaintiff to have a legally protected interest.
• United States v. Faro
  2019 WL 3323477· M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the government failed to meet its burden to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses, denying the motion.
• United States v. Meyer
  50 F.4th 23· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-26 ·cited 9×
  The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a defendant from moving for a protective order in an action initiated by the government, as such a motion does not constitute a 'suit' for the purpose of restraining tax assessment or collection.
• Rosauro Quintero v. Klaveness Ship Lines
  914 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 9×
  A district court has discretion to issue an injunction preventing relitigation of a choice-of-law determination made pursuant to a forum non conveniens dismissal, and such a dismissal can be with prejudice.
• Benita Sanchez Vda. DE Cosme v. SEA Containers, Ltd.
  874 F.2d 66· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the federal court's prior judgment did not decide the State Insurance Fund's subrogation claim, and therefore, the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply.
• Bluefield Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. John A. Anziulewicz, M.D.
  737 F.2d 405· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to enjoin the state court action under the Anti-Injunction Statute because the claims in the state action were not sufficiently identical to those litigated in federal court to warrant enjoining relitigation.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wencke
  577 F.2d 619· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Sun Fruit and that the default judgments were proper given the defendants' willful refusal to comply with discovery orders. However, the permanent injunction was modified as it granted relief beyond the scope of the com
• Fla. Fam. Policy Council v. Freeman
  561 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2009-03-06 ·cited 8×
  Florida Family Policy Council, a nonprofit organization that distributes questionnaires to judicial candidates, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E(1) and 3E(1)(f), which require judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality m