Anti-Injunction Act

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

• Livingston Rebuild Ctr., Inc. v. R.R. Ret. Bd.
  970 F.2d 295· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a company repairing locomotives performs a service in connection with railroad transportation and is therefore a statutory 'employer' subject to railroad taxes, and that the Railroad Retirement Board's determination is reviewable.
• Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  796 F. Supp. 1491· M.D. Fla.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority to enjoin state court and administrative proceedings that interfere with its prior desegregation orders, even if those proceedings involve state law claims or procedural objections.
• Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc.
  916 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 3×
  A federal court injunction barring a party from prosecuting a state court action violates the Anti-Injunction Act unless one of the Act's express exceptions applies.
• In re Litigation
  622 F. Supp. 1430· S.D. Fla.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the class action settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable, and approved it, finding it was reached without collusion and served the overriding public interest in favor of settlement.
• Bank of Am., N.A. v. McCann
  444 F. Supp. 2d 1227· N.D. Fla.· 2006-08-14 ·cited 2×
  Qui tam relators, lacking specific state authorization beyond their role in filing lawsuits, are not 'lawfully authorized State auditors and examiners' and thus cannot conduct visitations or examine national bank records under 12 U.S.C. § 484(b).
• Wolfe v. Safecard Servs., Inc.
  873 F. Supp. 648· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet the requirements for an injunction to stay state court proceedings, as he did not demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of an adequate remedy at law, and the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act did not clearly a
• The Univ. OF Md. AT Baltimore v. Peat
  996 F.2d 1534· 3d Cir.· 1993-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The Third Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of state law claims, finding that the federal RICO claim, which was the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, was improperly dismissed. The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief against state contempt proceedings,
• Allstate Ins. v. Preston
  842 F. Supp. 1441· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while continued state court litigation after removal is improper, a federal court cannot enjoin such proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and the relitigation exception does not apply to a dismissal without prejudice.
• Carroll Olson v. Hart
  965 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's complaint, even if styled as a mandamus petition, could be construed as a habeas corpus petition or a Section 1983 claim for deprivation of due process rights, and thus should not have been dismissed on abstention grounds.
• SMA Life Assurance Co. v. Sanchez-Pica
  960 F.2d 274· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief to prevent a local administrative agency from proceeding, despite a prior federal default judgment.
• Brown v. Vasquez
  952 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 2×
  A district court has jurisdiction to stay the execution of a state prisoner to appoint counsel to assist in preparing a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Victa
  936 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enjoin state court proceedings, as federal courts should generally defer to state courts' ability to resolve disputes.
• LCS Servs., Inc. v. Hamrick
  925 F.2d 745· 4th Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The district court's injunction against state court proceedings violated the Anti-Injunction Act because the issues in the state actions had not been previously decided by the federal court.
• Amwest Mortg. Corp. v. Grady
  925 F.2d 1162· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction to stay state court proceedings because the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act was not met.
• Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp. v. City OF W. Chicago
  914 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a municipal ordinance that on its face targets only health and safety hazards unrelated to radiation hazards, and that Kerr-McGee stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce its federal rights under the AEA
• Laughlin v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  912 F.2d 197· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 2×
  The IRS violated the automatic stay by levying on undistributed funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee, as these funds constitute property of the estate. The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the trustee's action to enforce the stay.
• Mathes v. United States
  901 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the collection of federal income taxes because the taxpayer had an adequate legal remedy by filing a timely petition with the Tax Court.
• In re Am. Bicycle Ass'n v. United States
  895 F.2d 1277· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 2×
  A bankruptcy court cannot enjoin the IRS from collecting a 100% penalty assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 against a responsible officer of a debtor corporation, as the Anti-Injunction Act bars such suits.
• Redner v. Citrus Cnty.
  710 F. Supp. 318· M.D. Fla.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that abstention was not warranted, and granted dismissal in part for claims related to damages and statutory notice, while denying dismissal for injunctive relief and dismissing claims based on unconstitutional bond conditions and conspiracy.
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Smith Plumbing Co., Inc.
  856 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against a state court proceeding, as the state court had jurisdiction over the surety and the injunction improperly anticipated future disputes and infringed on federal policy.
• Gamble v. Gen. Foods Corp.
  846 F.2d 51· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the presence of Doe defendants, who were not dismissed, destroys diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court, even if the case proceeded to judgment in federal court.
• Modzelewski v. Dugan
  627 F. Supp. 141· S.D. Fla.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not paid the disputed tax assessment and penalty in full, and had not alleged the IRS agent acted outside the scope of his employment
• The Ecclesiastical Order OF THE ISM OF AM, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  725 F.2d 398· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act prohibit suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of federal taxes, or seeking declaratory relief in federal tax matters. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on these acts but
• Northwood Apts. v. LaVALLEY
  649 F.2d 401· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985 for actions by taxpayers against local tax assessors for damages, especially when an adequate state remedy exists. The judge would also affirm dismissal based on t
• BOB Jones Univ. v. United States
  639 F.2d 147· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the IRS cannot revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status based on its religious beliefs regarding interracial dating, as the exemption is statutorily granted for religious purposes.
• Krey Packing Co. v. Hamilton
  572 F.2d 1280· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-11 ·cited 2×
  A federal court may not enjoin state court proceedings to enforce an arbitrator's award under the Labor Management Relations Act, as state courts have concurrent jurisdiction and such an injunction is not necessary in aid of federal jurisdiction.
• Kaestner v. Schmidt
  473 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the estoppel claim because material issues of fact were disputed, meaning the government could potentially prevail.
• Empire Life Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Lorenz
  445 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-15 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings under the anti-injunction statute, especially when the party seeking the injunction failed to remove the state action.
• Hilliard v. Commonwealth OF Pa. acting
  438 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-04 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state eminent domain proceedings, even if the landowners claim unconstitutional rulings have already been made in the state action.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.
  434 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1970-12-02 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 unless an express statutory exception applies, and the National Labor Relations Board, as an agency, is subject to this prohibition.
• Mistkot v. Wade
  433 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the pro se application to enjoin state court proceedings, as federal intervention was inappropriate under the circumstances and statutory limitations.
• Vigliano v. Honorable John G. Thevos
  390 F.2d 55· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from interfering with a pending state criminal proceeding, despite the plaintiff's claim of federal constitutional rights violations.
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement OF Colored People v. MacDonald Gallion
  290 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1961-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The federal court should have retained jurisdiction rather than dismissing the case, allowing state courts to determine the issues while preserving federal oversight.
• Bhargave v. Genesee Reg'l Bank
  2014 WL 2003120· M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a plaintiff seeking to enjoin state foreclosure proceedings must demonstrate that the injunction falls within one of the three narrow exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, which the plaintiff failed to do.
• Grant v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and therefore denied the motion for an emergency stay and dismissed the complaint.
• Tello ex rel. Estate of Tello v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  1991 WL 88047· S.D. Fla.· 2013-05-20 ·cited 1×
• Delvecchio v. Smith
  558 F. Supp. 2d 1243· S.D. Fla.· 2008-03-31 ·cited 1×
  The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, allowing the quiet title claim to proceed if service is perfected, but dismissing claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
• Horton v. Metro. Life Ins.
  459 F. Supp. 2d 1246· M.D. Fla.· 2006-10-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Darrin L. Johns is permanently enjoined from pursuing claims related to his 1993 whole life insurance policy because those claims are barred by the prior class action settlement agreement, which he failed to timely opt out of.
• Sounds of Serv. Radio v. Islamorada
  344 F. Supp. 2d 1376· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-05 ·cited 1×
  Sounds of Service Radio sought a preliminary injunction to stop state court proceedings between itself and G & G Trading, Inc., but the federal district court denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice because the federal court lacked authority under the Anti-Injunct
• Grant v. United States
  289 F. Supp. 2d 1361· S.D. Fla.· 2003-07-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the IRS's termination of the installment agreement and levying of social security benefits may constitute unauthorized collection actions, but claims related to the filing of a prior tax case, specific performance, and return of levied property are dismissed.
• Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  816 F. Supp. 714· M.D. Fla.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that an action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 constitutes an express exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, granting the court authority to enjoin state proceedings.
• Aucoin v. Santopadre, Sr.
  937 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 1×
  A successor bank did not assume unliquidated litigation liabilities of an insolvent predecessor bank under federal law, and a federal court judgment on property ownership precludes relitigation in state court.
• Warren v. United States
  874 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the taxpayers' claim for declaratory judgment regarding a frivolous tax return penalty.
• Greenman v. United States
  711 F. Supp. 1556· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims for tax refunds for 1979 and 1980 because no administrative refund claims were filed with the IRS, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• United States ex rel. Tarmac Fla., Inc. v. Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau
  448 F.2d 1328· S.D. Fla.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 1×
• Intercontinental Jet, Inc. v. United States
  690 F. Supp. 1012· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the sale of property seized for tax collection because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the government could not ultimately prevail.
• Stang v. Internal Revenue Serv. & William Connett
  788 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the IRS has no nondiscretionary duty to assess taxes on demand, precluding mandamus jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff's due process and equal protection claims were without merit.
• Paisey v. Vitale
  634 F. Supp. 741· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that injunctive relief against the state court judge and the state defamation action is barred by judicial immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act, but a claim for damages based on retaliation under Title VI may proceed.
• United States v. Driscoll's Towing Serv.
  51 B.R. 990· S.D. Fla.· 1985-07-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a bankrupt corporation lacks standing to challenge the personal tax liability of its principals under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, and that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits enjoining the assessment or collection of taxes.
• L.M.E., Inc. v. City of Hollywood
  605 F. Supp. 185· S.D. Fla.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the granting of a coastal construction permit to the City of Hollywood, finding that the developer, Woodholly Associates, Inc., properly raised the issue of the City's burden to prove the necessity and justification for the development.