Federal Anti-Injunction Act

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

• Rowe v. Griffin
  676 F.2d 524· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the extraordinary circumstances exception to Younger abstention applies, justifying equitable relief.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  657 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 57×
  Res judicata bars a litigant from bringing a contract claim in state court after a federal court dismissed related antitrust claims on the merits, because the litigant split its cause of action by failing to join the contract claim in the federal action.
• H. J. Heinz Co. v. Owens
  189 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 47×
  Federal courts are prohibited by statute from granting injunctions to stay state court proceedings, and granting declaratory relief that would interfere with state proceedings constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  739 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 42×
  The court should have abstained from hearing the case due to important state interests implicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.
• Duke v. The State OF Tex.
  477 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 35×
  Federal injunctive relief against state judicial proceedings is not prohibited where state procedures are inadequate to protect federal rights and prevent irreparable harm.
• Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  244 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-26 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes federal courts should not interfere with state court proceedings concerning property title after bankruptcy sales.
• Samuel C. Ennis & Co., Inc. v. Woodmar Realty Co.
  542 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-21 ·cited 33×
  A federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to prevent relitigation of issues already determined in the federal bankruptcy proceeding, even for non-parties who participated in the federal case.
• Timmerman v. The Honorable Franchot A. Brown
  528 F.2d 811· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 32×
  Judicial and quasi-judicial officers are immune from suits for money damages but not for equitable or declaratory relief. The Younger v. Harris doctrine does not bar federal equitable relief when plaintiffs allege bad faith or harassment by state officials.
• Tampa Phosphate R.R. Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  418 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, as federal law authorized the injunction and principles of comity did not bar it.
• Hill v. City OF EL Paso
  437 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-05 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that federal courts should abstain from deciding a constitutional challenge to a local ordinance when state courts can resolve the underlying state law issues, and that federal courts are generally prohibited from enjoining pending state
• Lamb Enters., Inc. v. Judge George N. Kiroff
  549 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court vacated the permanent injunction against state court judges and employees, and reversed the judgment against the private defendant.
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Cnty. OF SAN Diego & J. C. O'Connor
  495 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a general threat of enforcement, without a history of prosecution or specific immediacy, is insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court also found that a party ca
• Jones v. Wade
  479 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-30 ·cited 22×
  The court granted a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the prior panel decision.
• In re Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig. Appeal of Ky. Attorney Gen.
  521 F.2d 775· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court's order restraining the Kentucky Attorney General from executing on his state court judgment was an injunction barred by the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, as it was not necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction nor expressly author
• Zajac v. Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Paul
  909 F.2d 1181· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 18×
  The Anti-Injunction Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.
• Stevens v. Frick
  372 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-01 ·cited 18×
  The federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless an exception applies, and no exception was demonstrated here.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  434 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that certain Mobile ordinances were facially unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth, violating First Amendment rights, and that abstention was inappropriate.
• Traughber v. Beauchane
  760 F.2d 673· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 16×
  Federal courts should not abstain from hearing a § 1983 claim challenging state attachment procedures when state remedies are inadequate or uncertain.
• Honey v. Goodman
  432 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that § 1983 is not an exception to the prohibition in § 2283 against federal courts enjoining state proceedings.
• Taylor v. Ky. State BAR Ass'n
  424 F.2d 478· 6th Cir.· 1970-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claim for a three-judge panel, but erred in not considering the claim for federal injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Jennings v. Boenning & Co. & Boenning & Scattergood, Inc.
  482 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to restrain execution of a state court judgment, as neither the Securities Exchange Act's § 21(e) nor the Anti-Injunction Act's 'necessary in aid of jurisdiction' exception applied.
• Clean AIR Coordinating Comm. v. Roth-Adam Fuel Co.
  465 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The Federal Anti-injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless expressly authorized by Congress, and the Clean Air Act does not provide such authorization.
• Denton v. City of Carrollton
  235 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1956-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The district court erred in declining jurisdiction; the exorbitant and punitive nature of the ordinance, coupled with uncertainty of tax recovery and risk of criminal penalties, warrants equitable relief.
• Livingston v. Garmire
  442 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 9×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution unless the plaintiff proves great and immediate irreparable injury, and mere vagueness or overbreadth of a statute is insufficient without bad faith or harassment.
• Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp.
  528 F.2d 949· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 4332, authorizes federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to effectuate federal environmental policy, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 2283 does not bar such injunctions.
• Hollywood Cmty. Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Hollywood
  430 F. Supp. 2d 1296· S.D. Fla.· 2006-05-10 ·cited 7×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed while dismissing others.
• James v. Bellotti
  733 F.2d 989· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the case was improvidently removed because the complaint did not establish federal question jurisdiction, and therefore must be remanded to state court.
• Pac. Indem. Co. v. Acel Delivery Serv., Inc.
  432 F.2d 952· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 6×
• Mitchum v. State
  237 So. 2d 72· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-06-17 ·cited 4×
  A Florida state appellate court rejected an attempt by obscenity merchants to stay a state court injunction by obtaining a conflicting federal court order restraining state court enforcement. The court held that the Federal Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2283) prohibited the
• Collins v. Laclede GAS Co.
  237 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1956-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay state court proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2283, absent express statutory authorization or necessity to protect federal jurisdiction or judgments.
• United States v. Certified Indus., Inc.
  361 F.2d 857· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the substitution of a bond for a mechanic's lien did not fundamentally alter the nature of the state court's in rem foreclosure action, thus the federal court could not enjoin the state proceedings.
• Fred and Dorothy Joiner v. City OF Dallas
  488 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an exception to the anti-injunction statute, granting federal courts jurisdiction to enjoin state proceedings when property rights are at issue. The court also found that federal courts should consider injunction claims under Younger
• Buie v. Pigott
  439 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal injunctions against state proceedings.
• L.W. Laird v. Integrated Res., Inc.
  897 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-06
  The court, in a special concurrence, agreed with the majority's result to reverse summary judgment but disagreed with the broad fiduciary duty standard announced by the majority for investment advisors under § 10(b).
• Megaphone Co. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  361 F.2d 857· S.D. Fla.· 1986-09-03
• Ozel Conley v. Dauer
  463 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-17
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lack
  443 F.2d 404· 4th Cir.· 1971-06-15
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining state court proceedings and refusing to dissolve the injunction, as it was not necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction.
• Sutton v. Jones
  443 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-11
  The appeal from the denial of injunctive relief is moot because the appellant has since been convicted of the robbery charge.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Chambers
  376 F.2d 815· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-25
  The federal court should not exercise jurisdiction to enjoin a state court criminal prosecution when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy under state law and no substantial federal question is presented.