Johnson Act (28 U.S.C. § 1342)

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

• McCRAY v. Burrell
  516 F.2d 357· 4th Cir.· 1975-04-10 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the appellate court cannot discard a district judge's inferences, which are part of the findings of fact. The court also discussed the evolving doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in prisoner § 1983 cases.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF Nev.
  614 F.2d 206· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 63×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case under the Johnson Act; Pullman abstention is appropriate, requiring the district court to retain jurisdiction pending resolution of state law issues.
• Hargrave v. Shellie McKINNEY
  413 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 62×
  The court should affirm the district court's decision because the equal protection claim is insubstantial and settled by precedent.
• City OF Houston & Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standard-Triumph Motor Co., Inc.
  347 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1965-05-25 ·cited 52×
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF N.C.
  713 F.2d 1024· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Burford doctrine, affirming the dismissal of the action. Federal courts should not intervene in complex state regulatory schemes involving important state policy when adequate state c
• Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n
  740 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to stay proceedings and properly granted a preliminary injunction, as the federal law issues and the ongoing nature of the state court proceedings weighed against abstention, and the utility demonstra
• Helmsley v. City OF Detroit
  320 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1963-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments.
• The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Seattle v. State OF Wash.
  629 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Johnson Act bars federal jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin state tax collection, and that the Housing Authority does not qualify for exceptions as a federal instrumentality or due to a special federal interest without the United States joining as a
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  782 F.2d 1236· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in abstaining, as federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to the federal preemption claim.
• The Detroit Edison Co. v. E. China Twp. Sch. Dist. NO. 3
  378 F.2d 225· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that annexation of school districts is a political matter not subject to federal constitutional challenge, and that federal courts should abstain from hearing challenges to state tax assessments when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists.
• Tennyson v. GAS Serv. Co.
  506 F.2d 1135· 10th Cir.· 1974-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Johnson Act precludes federal jurisdiction over challenges to state utility rate orders, even when framed as class actions seeking declaratory and monetary relief.
• Non-Resident Taxpayers Ass'n v. The Municipality OF Philadelphia
  478 F.2d 456· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Johnson Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and effective state remedy exists, and that federal regulations requiring employees to pay local taxes do not violate due process or privacy rights.
• Nucor Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist.
  891 F.2d 1343· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that damages are too speculative and not supported by Nebraska case law when a rate schedule is found unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory, and that the appropriate remedy is to remand for a hearing to determine fair rates.
• Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF State OF Haw.
  827 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-11 ·cited 12×
  The FCC order was not enforceable because the FCC lacked authority to regulate intrastate rate-making, and the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction. Furthermore, the claim was collaterally estopped by a prior Hawaii Supreme Court decision.
• Hanna Mining Co. v. Minn. Power & Light Co.
  739 F.2d 1368· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Johnson Act bars federal jurisdiction over a dispute concerning a utility contract's minimum payment provision, as it constitutes an order affecting rates made by a state agency.
• City of Meridian v. Miss. Valley Gas Co.
  214 F.2d 525· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Johnson Act does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction when a rate ordinance is enacted without reasonable notice and hearing, as determined by the court.
• Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  829 F.2d 1444· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while federal courts have jurisdiction, state rate-making authorities are not preempted by the Federal Power Act from using ordinary suspension and investigation procedures for federally ordered wholesale rate increases.
• Wyandotte Chems. Corp. v. City OF Wyandotte
  321 F.2d 927· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments, thus barring federal intervention under the Johnson Act.
• Gen. Inv. & Serv. Corp., Inc. v. The Wichita Water Co. & The City of Wichita
  236 F.2d 464· 10th Cir.· 1956-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The federal court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action for an injunction and declaratory judgment concerning a city ordinance imposing a water surcharge, and therefore should have dismissed the case without reaching the merits.
• Kansas-Nebraska Natural GAS Co., Inc. v. The City OF ST. Edward
  234 F.2d 436· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The federal court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of state-authorized utility rates because the Natural Gas Act exempts local distribution and sale of natural gas from federal regulation, leaving such matters to state courts.
• King v. Sloane
  545 F.2d 7· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-10 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear challenges to state or local taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state courts, even if framed as a civil rights action.
• McCAW v. Fase
  216 F.2d 698· 9th Cir.· 1954-10-30 ·cited 3×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because a related case challenging the same tax statute has been decided, rendering the jurisdictional question in this appeal non-justiciable.
• Nat'l Fuel GAS Distrib. Corp. v. TGX Corp. & Paragon Res., Inc.
  950 F.2d 829· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the PSC Order voided only the price term of the contract, not the entire contract, and that the parties' subsequent conduct constituted an election to continue under the contract at the NGPA ceiling price.
• Blumberg v. Pinellas Cnty.
  836 F. Supp. 839· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-09
  The court held that a protected property interest existed in the interest generated by utility customer deposits, and that the county's retention of this interest constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.
• Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop.
  951 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-11
  The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the Commission, and the Johnson Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over claims against the utility regarding state-approved rates, even for damages or declaratory relief.
• Peoples Nat'l Util. Co. v. The City OF Houston
  837 F.2d 1366· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-25
  The court held that the Johnson Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over suits challenging state orders affecting public utility rates, even when brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Shrader v. Horton
  626 F.2d 1163· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-21
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action on the merits.
• Helmsley v. City OF Detroit
  380 F.2d 169· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-29
  The dissenting judge believes the tax valuations were so unfair as to amount to fraud, warranting reversal.
• Henry v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  329 F.2d 780· 5th Cir.· 1964-04-01
  The federal court properly dismissed the suit for declaratory decree because a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy existed in state courts, even if the state limitations period had expired.