Anti-Injunction Act

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

• LOS Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. The City OF Oakland
  717 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-29 ·cited 6×
  A federal court lacks authority under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to enjoin an ongoing state court eminent domain action, absent a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims or grave abuse of state courts.
• Dickens v. United States
  671 F.2d 969· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act bar federal courts from enjoining the IRS from using information obtained from a court-ordered wiretap and search warrant for tax assessment purposes.
• North v. Budig
  637 F.2d 246· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 6×
  The district court should have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction under the Pullman abstention doctrine, and its injunctive orders restraining the state court were improper.
• Meridian Investing & Dev. Corp. v. Suncoast Highland Corp.
  628 F.2d 370· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying Meridian's motions for injunctions, as state courts cannot enjoin federal in personam actions and federal courts can enjoin state relitigation of adjudicated issues.
• Walker v. Wegner
  624 F.2d 60· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris is not appropriate because the administrative proceeding cannot resolve the constitutional claims and requiring exhaustion would cause undue delay and prior restraint.
• Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Union Camp Corp.
  613 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a permanent injunction was proper to prevent re-litigation of issues decided in a prior federal diversity case, as the prior federal decision was res judicata and collateral estoppel applied.
• Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Balbin
  591 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court may not decline to exercise jurisdiction over an interpleader action simply because a state court action is pending, especially when state certification procedures are available for resolving state law issues.
• Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. OF Peoria
  574 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1978-03-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Clayton Act, as interpreted by Vendo, does not authorize federal injunctions against state court judgments unless the state proceedings constitute a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims.
• Armstrong v. Maple Leaf Apts., Ltd.
  508 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court injunction should have been issued to prohibit Oklahoma probate court proceedings seeking retroactive approval of a deed from an Indian grantor, as the state court cannot approve a conveyance over the grantor's objection.
• Kent v. The N. Cal. Reg'l Off. OF the Am. Friends Serv. Comm.
  497 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the interpleader and injunctive relief actions because the trustees lacked standing and the interpleader statute's requirements were not met.
• Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Posey
  486 F.2d 739· 10th Cir.· 1973-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant could not enjoin state court judgments based on a subsequently decided constitutional challenge to the replevin statute, nor could it seek protection of a prior federal judgment that did not address the validity of state claims.
• Trent v. United States
  442 F.2d 405· 6th Cir.· 1971-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statutory prohibition against enjoining tax collection applies, and the narrow exception does not apply because the government could ultimately prevail.
• McLUCAS v. Honorable Aaron J. Palmer
  427 F.2d 239· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-21 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, even through declaratory judgment.
• Euge v. J. Earl Smith, M.D.
  418 F.2d 1296· 8th Cir.· 1969-12-10 ·cited 6×
  A federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay state court proceedings except in limited circumstances, and this case does not fall within those exceptions.
• The Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co., Inc. v. Bersin Bagel Grp., LLC
  817 F.3d 719· 11th Cir.· 2016-03-25 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to vacate an injunction barring Bersin Bagel Group from prosecuting state law claims against Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Company in Florida state court. The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibited the federa
• Florida Ex Rel. McCollum v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  716 F. Supp. 2d 1120· N.D. Fla.· 2010-10-14 ·cited 5×
  The court found that the "penalty" for non-compliance with the individual mandate was not a "tax" for constitutional analysis purposes, based on Congress's deliberate choice of language and prior legislative history. This classification impacts the applicability of the Anti-Injun
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Seahawk Deep Ocean Tech., Inc.
  74 F. Supp. 2d 1188· M.D. Fla.· 1999-10-07 ·cited 5×
  The court denied Seahawk's motion for reconsideration, affirming that it could not enjoin state court proceedings because the individual defendants were not bound by the prior federal judgment and the Anti-Injunction Act's exceptions did not apply.
• Sierra Club v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  992 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the FDIC, but vacated the injunction because the plaintiffs had not yet shown entitlement to relief and the district court failed to enter required findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• United States v. Kenny
  462 F.2d 1230· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 5×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a state court prosecution based on a claim of immunity granted under federal law, as the defendant can assert such immunity as a defense in the state proceedings.
• Gross v. Barnett Banks, Inc.
  934 F. Supp. 1340· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining state court proceedings that sought to relitigate claims already resolved by a federal class action settlement, and that the movant was not entitled to relief from the judgment due to inadequate notice.
• The Travelers Ins. Co. v. La. Farm Bureau Fed'n, Inc.
  996 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-29 ·cited 4×
• Apache Bend Apts., Ltd. v. United States
  987 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants lacked standing because their alleged injury was a generalized grievance not distinct from the general public.
• Marschhauser v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  124 F.R.D. 235· S.D. Fla.· 1992-12-21 ·cited 4×
• Apache Bend Apts., Ltd. v. United States
  964 F.2d 1556· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge holds that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their equal protection claim because they have not alleged a legally cognizable injury.
• Royal Ins. Co. OF Am. & Royal Lloyds of Tex. v. Quinn-L Cap. Corp.
  960 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act justified enjoining the investors' direct contractual claims, but the aid of jurisdiction exception did not justify enjoining their assignee claims. The court also affirmed ancillary jurisdiction over the c
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran
  959 F.2d 634· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 4×
  A federal court should not interfere with ongoing state litigation by issuing an injunction, especially when the litigant has an adequate remedy through appeal after a final judgment.
• W. Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa
  958 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act permits enjoining state court proceedings barred by res judicata, not just issues actually litigated, and that sanctions for vexatious litigation require an appropriate hearing.
• Claughton v. Donner
  771 F. Supp. 1200· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, thus granting the motions to dismiss.
• Jones v. United States
  889 F.2d 1448· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the IRS properly issued deficiency notices and assessed taxes, and the Anti-Injunction Act barred the taxpayers' suit to enjoin collection.
• Sims Snowboards, Inc. v. Craig Kelly & the Burton Corp.
  863 F.2d 643· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 4×
  A federal court in a diversity case must apply state law, including anti-injunction statutes, if that law is outcome-determinative, even if federal equitable powers might otherwise permit an injunction.
• G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. v. Ira Adler
  845 F.2d 899· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction under the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Farnum v. United States
  813 F.2d 114· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to restrain the collection of assessed penalties under the Anti-Injunction Act when the taxpayer fails to meet the statutory exceptions.
• Lovell v. United States
  795 F.2d 976· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dissent's arguments regarding the anti-injunction act and due process were not properly before the court due to a failure to contest a finding of no irreparable harm.
• Linn v. Chivatero
  790 F.2d 1270· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government's position was not substantially justified, and the amended Act applies.
• Herring v. Moore
  735 F.2d 797· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars injunctive relief against tax collection and that the taxpayer's claims were frivolous.
• In re Fed. Shopping WAY, Inc. v. Owners OF NW 20 Real Est.
  717 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act to enjoin state court proceedings to quiet title to real property that was no longer in the bankruptcy court's possession and as to which title had not been adjudicated.
• Smith v. William R. "Bill" Paulk
  705 F.2d 1279· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Oklahoma's one-year durational residency requirement for private employment agency license applicants violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but a simple residency requirement is permissible.
• Zarko Sekerez v. Supreme Court OF Ind.
  685 F.2d 202· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings against an attorney when the state has a sufficient interest and the proceedings provide an opportunity to raise constitutional claims, absent bad faith or harassment.
• Jureczki v. The City OF Seabrook
  668 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without an adequate hearing and without considering the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine after state proceedings had concluded.
• Harald Schleiffer v. Meyers
  644 F.2d 656· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 4×
  A child under eleven does not possess an independent constitutional right to override a custodial parent's decision regarding relocation.
• Educo, Inc. v. Alexander
  557 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the government could not prevail under any circumstances, a prerequisite for an exception to the Act. The court also found the Declaratory Judgment Act inapplicable.
• Marvel v. United States
  548 F.2d 295· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The Anti-Injunction Act bars injunctive relief to prevent IRS asset seizure during a tax refund suit, even if seizure would cause irreparable harm, unless the government cannot possibly prevail on the merits.
• Jacobson v. The Organized Crime & Racketeering Section OF the United States Dep't OF Just.
  544 F.2d 637· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit for a preliminary injunction and that the damage claims were legally insufficient.
• James v. United States
  542 F.2d 16· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the taxpayer failed to satisfy the prerequisites for enjoining tax collection under the Williams Packing and Shapiro tests, and thus the District Court correctly denied injunctive relief.
• Reimer v. United States
  441 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the taxpayer's suit seeking to enjoin the collection of an income tax assessment was properly dismissed because he failed to meet the requirements for an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act and had an adequate remedy at law.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A1 Schertzer & Philip Gorenstein
  360 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-03 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin state garnishment proceedings that interfere with the enforcement of National Labor Relations Board back pay orders, as such injunctions are necessary in aid of the court's jurisdiction and to protect its judgments.
• Balistrieri v. United States
  303 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1962-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court correctly dismissed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment to examine records sought by the IRS, as such suits are generally barred by statute and courts should not interfere prematurely in administrative proceedings.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1336· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority under the All Writs Act to enjoin CIGNA from proceeding with a settlement in another federal court that threatens the jurisdiction and integrity of this multidistrict litigation.
• Nenita S. Villar v. Crowley Mar. Corp.
  990 F.2d 1489· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-25 ·cited 3×
  The court should have remanded for discovery on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens issues, as denying discovery contradicts established Fifth Circuit law.