Anti-Injunction Act

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

• Guthrie v. K.J. Sawyer
  970 F.2d 733· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-21 ·cited 8×
  A taxpayer may obtain injunctive relief under I.R.C. § 6213(a) for failure to receive a deficiency notice, and procedural violations in assessment or levy are cognizable in a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C. § 2410. Summary judgment against taxpayers who failed to provide an af
• Farias v. Bexar Cnty. Bd. OF Trs. FOR Mental Health Mental Retardation Servs.
  925 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a jury trial motion was not reviewable because the order was too opaque and failed to demonstrate the exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b).
• Overton v. United States
  925 F.2d 1282· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed claims against the revenue officer for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the government on claims against the United States due to sovereign immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act.
• United States Steel Corp. Plan FOR Emp. Ins. Benefits v. Musisko
  885 F.2d 1170· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The district court's injunction and declaratory judgment are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because ERISA does not expressly authorize federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings.
• Gloucester Marine Railways Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc.
  848 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The Anti-Injunction Act barred the federal district court from issuing an injunction or declaratory judgment that would stay or interfere with the enforcement of a state court judgment, even if the relief sought was framed as affecting the rights of insurers.
• In the Estate OF Noman L. Johnson v. United States
  836 F.2d 940· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an executor can bring a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) to determine the priority of estate expenses over federal tax liens, as the suit is akin to a third-party action.
• Wiemerslage v. Grieco
  838 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The Internal Revenue Code's antidisclosure provision, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(n), permits the IRS to contract out tax return processing functions to private entities when necessary for tax administration.
• Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp. v. Hartigan
  816 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly refused to enjoin the state court proceedings because the state was not bound by the prior federal decision and the Anti-Injunction Act did not mandate an injunction.
• Sorenson v. The Sec'y OF the Treas. OF the United States
  752 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the tax intercept program, as amended by OBRA, applies to earned income credits and that the Secretary's actions were not barred by sovereign immunity or jurisdictional statutes. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding earned income credits.
• Stites v. United States Gov't
  746 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit and that the taxpayers' claims were frivolous, warranting double costs on appeal.
• Maxfield v. United States Postal Serv.
  752 F.2d 433· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the taxpayer's suit against his employer for wrongful tax withholding, and the employer is immune from liability for following IRS directives.
• In re Mooney Aircraft, Inc. v. Foster
  730 F.2d 367· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin tort claims against a successor corporation because the claims did not exist at the time of the bankruptcy sale and were not encompassed by the bankruptcy court's prior orders.
• Souther v. G.L. Mihlbachler
  701 F.2d 131· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 8×
  Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the collection of taxes or penalties, and the petitioner failed to meet the stringent requirements for an exception.
• In re Davis v. Sheldon
  691 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 8×
  A federal court should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions impacting bankruptcy proceedings when the state has a legitimate interest and the defendants have not demonstrated bad faith or irreparable harm.
• Smith v. Cora Rich and Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  667 F.2d 1228· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes, and the plaintiffs' claims did not fall within any statutory exceptions.
• The State OF Cal. v. The Honorable Donald T. Regan
  641 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear California's claim for declaratory relief regarding ERISA's tax-related reporting requirements due to the federal tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act.
• AD Visor, Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  640 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Berry's state court collection actions are protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and the district court abused its discretion in issuing injunctions.
• Morgan L. McCABE v. Alexander
  526 F.2d 963· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act bar suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of federal taxes, and the plaintiff failed to meet the exception requiring the government to be unable to prevail on the merits.
• United States v. Akin
  504 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and should not have abstained from hearing the case. The McCarran Amendment does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction over water rights cases brought by the United States.
• Ungar v. Mandell
  471 F.2d 1163· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The denial of injunctive relief was affirmed, but the dismissal of the suit was reversed and remanded for further findings on collateral estoppel.
• Milner v. Colonel R. H. Burson
  470 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal intervention in state criminal prosecutions is improper unless bad faith or harassment is shown, and the district court erred by not applying this standard.
• Lucia v. United States
  447 F.2d 912· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 8×
• Abernathy v. Conroy
  429 F.2d 1170· 4th Cir.· 1970-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Charleston's ordinance prohibiting parades after 8 p.m. is facially constitutional, and the South Carolina common law definition of riot is also constitutional.
• Enters. Unlimited, Inc. v. Dalmon Davis
  340 F.2d 472· 9th Cir.· 1965-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the United States could not establish its claim or that an adequate remedy at law was unavailable.
• Loyd v. Stewart & Nuss, Inc.
  327 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The Bankruptcy Court lacked summary jurisdiction to determine a dispute over a fund not in the debtor's possession where the debtor's title was disputed, and the stop notice attached to a debt owed to a third party, not the debtor.
• Effie Gilmer Williamson v. The Honorable Paul Puerifoy
  316 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-29 ·cited 8×
• Botta v. Scanlon
  288 F.2d 504· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that individuals not specified in the taxing statutes as liable for a tax, especially a penalty for willful acts, should have an opportunity for judicial review before their property is seized.
• Anne M. Evans v. ST. Louis Hous. Auth.
  226 F.2d 750· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the complaint because federal law prohibits enjoining state court proceedings, and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Gersten v. Rundle
  833 F. Supp. 906· S.D. Fla.· 1993-09-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief because the alleged bad faith actions did not rise to the level of an imminent prosecution or infringement of constitutional rights, and federal courts should not interfere with state contempt proceed
• Am. Town Ctr. v. Hall 83 Assocs.
  912 F.2d 104· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an unsigned letter of intent for real property sale is void under the statute of frauds, but reversed the dismissal of a fraud claim for insufficient pleading. It also affirmed the denial of an injunction against state court proceedings.
• Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank & Schreiner Bancshares
  894 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court's order prohibiting foreclosure proceedings was an injunction issued in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and the Anti-Injunction Act, requiring reversal.
• Toribio Garcia v. Bauza-Salas
  862 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 7×
  A federal court cannot issue an injunction that stays or nullifies the effect of a state court proceeding or judgment, as this violates the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Roat v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv.
  847 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Commissioner is not required to prepare a tax return on behalf of a taxpayer before issuing a valid notice of deficiency, and that the Anti-Injunction Act bars suits seeking to restrain tax collection when adequate legal remedies exist.
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Garrett J. Barry
  825 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction was properly issued to protect the plaintiff's remedy and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Stephen E. and Velda R. Holloway v. United States
  789 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 7×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the property in question has been sold and the purchaser has not been made a party to the action, preventing the court from granting effective relief.
• Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  518 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b) does not grant the President the substantive authority to impose license fees of the magnitude at issue, as it is limited to direct import controls.
• Gajon BAR & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly
  508 F.2d 1317· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that federal courts should not interfere with pending state court proceedings unless absolutely necessary to prevent irreparable injury to constitutional rights, and that a corporation does not possess First Amendment free speech rights.
• King v. Jones
  450 F.2d 478· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts must not interfere with state court proceedings, and parties must first seek modification or dissolution of state court orders in state court before seeking federal relief.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swift & Co.
  233 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1956-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceeding due to the prohibition in 28 U.S.C. § 2283, as the Board failed to meet any of the statutory exceptions.
• James v. United States
  970 F.2d 750· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while challenges to the underlying tax liability are outside the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2410, claims regarding procedural irregularities in tax assessment and collection, such as the notice of intent to levy, are within the waiver of sovereign immunity.
• Class v. City OF Seattle
  955 F.2d 1268· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreements and allocation plan, finding that the trustee had the authority to bind bondholders and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
• McDOUGAL v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  942 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that California's one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The court reversed dismissal of the inverse condemnation claim, finding that a legitimate regulatory purpose do
• In re William Michael Fussell f/d/b/a F-V Ranch and Julia White Fussell v. Karen Price as Dist. Attorney of Shelby Cnty.
  928 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A bankruptcy court may enjoin a state criminal proceeding only if the requisites of both Younger v. Harris and the Anti-Injunction Act are met, including the identification of a federally protected right threatened by the prosecution.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. State
  929 F.2d 1532· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim of federal preemption does not fall within the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, and thus the district court erred in enjoining the state prosecution based on preemption alone.
• Total Plan Servs., Inc. v. Tex. Retailers Ass'n, Inc.
  925 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The federal district court correctly dismissed the complaint because the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings, even when federal law may preempt the state claims.
• Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Haskell Burke
  897 F.2d 734· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied Nationwide's motions to stay state proceedings and impose sanctions, and that the declaratory judgment action and intervention motion were moot due to intervening events, requiring remand for dismissal.
• The Coastal Corp. v. Tex. E. Corp.
  869 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 6×
  An injunction procured by material misrepresentation may not be sustained, and a district court cannot dissolve its own injunction once an appeal has been filed, except to maintain the status quo.
• Vill. OF Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utils. Co. OF Ill.
  864 F.2d 481· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 6×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings to enforce a consent decree, even if the decree might violate the Sherman Act, because the antitrust laws do not expressly authorize such injunctions and the state proceedings are not a 'sham litigation' designed solely to imp
• State OF Tex. v. United States
  837 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked authority to enjoin state court proceedings because the state action did not threaten the federal court's jurisdiction over the administrative appeal.
• Jensen v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  835 F.2d 196· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in finding insufficient equitable grounds for injunctive relief, remanding for determination of IRS notice compliance.