-
736 F.2d 1134·
7th Cir.·
1984-03-12
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff's suit to enjoin collection of a tax penalty was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and did not meet the exception criteria.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-02-02
The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint and denying her emergency demand for a preliminary injunction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-30
The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part the motion to dismiss ADA claims and staying the FHA claims under the Colorado River abstention doctrine.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-10
The Anti-Injunction Act bars federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless specific exceptions apply, and neither the FHA nor the ADA provide such an exception for this case.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-22
A federal court cannot enjoin state court proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and principles of comity and federalism require respect for state judicial systems.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-07
The court denied all of the plaintiff's emergency motions seeking federal intervention in state family court proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-18
The court held that the judges named as defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and the remaining claims are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and Younger abstention doctrine.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-28
The court held that federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act and must abstain under the Younger doctrine when asked to intervene in ongoing state matters.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-30
State Farm sued an auto glass company and its owners for fraudulently obtaining insurance payments by misrepresenting windshield repair claims and allegedly violating consumer protection laws. The court granted summary judgment against State Farm on its FDUTPA (consumer protectio
-
104 F.4th 220·
11th Cir.·
2024-06-04
The Eleventh Circuit held that the IRS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing Notice 2017-10 without public notice and comment, as Congress did not expressly exempt this procedure.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-08-07
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly file an administrative claim for a tax refund and that the claim for injunctive and declaratory relief was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, thus dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-03-28
The Court held that it retains jurisdiction to consider a motion seeking enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) as a collateral issue, and that the IRS's administrative penalty investigation constitutes a 'proceeding' under Rule 36(b).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-01-13
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, primarily due to a lack of demonstrated federal jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-27
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims challenging tax assessments and collections due to sovereign immunity and statutory bars, and that a claim regarding a 'seriously delinquent tax debt' certification failed to state a claim.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-06-14
The court held that the defendant's motion for a protective order, seeking to prevent the IRS from using his Rule 36 admissions in a penalty examination, was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-03-12
The court held that it would not enjoin state court proceedings because the issue of whether the state court class definition includes parties whose claims were released in a prior federal settlement was not clear beyond peradventure, and Blue Cross had an adequate remedy at law
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-31
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's tax-related claims against the United States and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for Bivens liability against individual IRS agents due to the existence of alternative statutory remedies.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-16
The court held that an injunction under the All Writs Act is not warranted to prohibit defendants from filing future state court proceedings because it is not necessary to safeguard the court's jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-04
The court held that a request for an injunction to stay a state foreclosure sale was denied because the plaintiff failed to meet procedural requirements and demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and because the Anti-Injunction Act barred such relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-19
The court deferred ruling on an injunction against a non-party prosecuting claims released in a prior settlement, pending the non-party's response, and denied a motion for an order to show cause.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-02
The court held that a motion for relief from a monetary judgment for past wrongdoing cannot be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) as it does not have prospective effect, and financial hardship alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances for relief unde
-
465 B.R. 309·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-09-13
The Eleventh Circuit's decision in In re Diaz dictates that a bankruptcy court's disallowance of a child support claim does not prevent a state from pursuing collection of that nondischargeable debt post-bankruptcy. Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred in enjoining the state fro
-
780 F. Supp. 2d 1307·
N.D. Fla.·
2011-03-03
The court clarified that its prior order declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and void was intended to have immediate effect, and treated the defendants' motion to clarify as a motion to stay pending appeal.
-
615 F. Supp. 2d 1347·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-02-25
The court granted summary judgment for the government on claims related to tax liens and unauthorized collection actions for certain tax years, but denied summary judgment on claims regarding the issuance of a notice of deficiency for 2004 taxes.
-
2000 WL 343245·
M.D. Fla.·
2000-03-31
The court denied the construed motion to enjoin state court proceedings and the emergency motion for a case management conference, citing the Anti-Injunction Act and prior scheduling orders. The court also warned parties about excessive motion filings and potential Rule 11 sancti
-
54 F. Supp. 2d 1297·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-06-23
The court denied Seahawk's motion for an injunction, finding that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibited enjoining the state court indemnification action.
-
8 F. Supp. 2d 1357·
M.D. Fla.·
1998-06-12
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because she failed to demonstrate that she had no other adequate remedy at law, as required by the Anti-Injunction Act.
-
89 F. Supp. 553·
M.D. Fla.·
1997-06-17
-
859 F. Supp. 396·
S.D. Fla.·
1996-10-22
The court denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, finding that the state court's decision on forum non conveniens did not relitigate an issue previously decided by the federal court.
-
168 B.R. 441·
S.D. Fla.·
1994-06-08
The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Kanouse was not entitled to relief under 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) because he was not a debtor or former debtor at the time of the alleged discrimination. The court also denied Gunster's petition for an in
-
846 F. Supp. 993·
S.D. Fla.·
1994-03-09
The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit because the plaintiff's request for a tax registration certificate was an attempt to restrain the collection of taxes, and the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for the sole judicial exception to the Act.
-
999 F.2d 142·
6th Cir.·
1993-07-15
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction, holding that the prior consent decree in Huguley v. General Motors Corp. had preclusive effect and barred Abbie Perry's subsequent race discrimination claims.
-
993 F.2d 701·
9th Cir.·
1993-05-18
The court held that it will dismiss appeals from litigants who refuse to comply with previous court orders, specifically the payment of sanctions.
-
990 F.2d 451·
9th Cir.·
1993-03-29
The court held that the employer is not immune from liability for turning over exempt workmen's compensation benefits, as these were not subject to the IRS levy. The court also held that the dismissal of the claim challenging the procedural validity of the wage levy against the U
-
989 F.2d 929·
7th Cir.·
1993-03-24
The court held that the bankruptcy court's dismissal of claims against L & S Industries did not preclude the Stefans from asserting those claims in state court because there was no privity between them and the bankruptcy trustee. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's dec
-
988 F.2d 252·
1st Cir.·
1993-03-09
The court held that the section 1983 claims failed due to lack of state action and that the Fair Housing Act claims should not have been entertained by the federal district court due to the Anti-Injunction Act and Younger abstention. The federal district court improperly enjoined
-
985 F.2d 908·
7th Cir.·
1993-02-09
A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to remove a state court action solely to protect a prior federal judgment based on state law.
-
985 F.2d 459·
9th Cir.·
1993-02-02
A federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay arbitration proceedings ordered by a state court, as such an order constitutes a state court proceeding protected by the Anti-Injunction Act.
-
986 F.2d 12·
2d Cir.·
1993-01-25
The court held that various federal statutes shield the IRS from liability for damages arising from erroneous tax levies, even when caused by computer error.
-
982 F.2d 371·
9th Cir.·
1992-12-23
An injunction restraining state eminent domain proceedings violates the Anti-Injunction Act when the prior federal judgment did not actually decide the issues raised in the state action and thus cannot create a conflict or be a res judicata bar.
-
979 F.2d 324·
3d Cir.·
1992-11-12
The court held that a district court must follow an appellate court's mandate, and mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance when the district court attempts to circumvent it by certifying an already decided issue to a state court.
-
978 F.2d 1201·
10th Cir.·
1992-11-03
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to demonstrate an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.
-
968 F.2d 401·
3d Cir.·
1992-07-06
The court held that even though a state court action may be preempted by ERISA and fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction, this does not automatically satisfy the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, allowing federal courts to enjoin state proceedings.
-
965 F.2d 538·
7th Cir.·
1992-06-24
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the Anti-Injunction Act barred Pelfresne's attempt to enjoin the state court's raze order because Pelfresne had constructive notice of the order and was not a good faith purchaser under Wisconsin law.
-
963 F.2d 530·
2d Cir.·
1992-05-06
The court held that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applied to most of the state actions because the issues had been decided in federal court, but reversed the stay as to Advest in the first state action and limited the scope of the stay in the third state a
-
940 F.2d 536·
9th Cir.·
1991-08-06
The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to assert jurisdiction over United Tote, as such review is limited to courts of appeals.
-
932 F.2d 357·
5th Cir.·
1991-05-15
The court held that Total Plan's ERISA claim was properly dismissed because it sought to recover personal losses, not losses to the plan, and that the Anti-Injunction Act barred enjoining the state court action.
-
920 F.2d 1481·
9th Cir.·
1990-12-12
The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the Church's suit for injunctive relief because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the Church failed to meet the narrow judicial exception to the Act.
-
904 F.2d 996·
5th Cir.·
1990-07-06
The court held that Dorney's gas was not dedicated under the B&A-Lone Star contract, thus precluding his breach of contract claim, and that his fraud claim lacked necessary reliance.
-
896 F.2d 240·
7th Cir.·
1990-02-16
The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar state court proceedings for breach of contract and negligence claims, as these were outside the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's jurisdiction. However, an injunction was granted to prevent relitigation of fraud claims