green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
23.0 score
“the legislative policy that 'permits a federal court to enjoin state court action when a federal court has decided a suit on its substantive merits has equal force when a critical underlying issue unrelated to the substantive merits of the action has been litigated to finality.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cynthia E. Canady v. Allstate Ins. Co.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the legislative policy that 'permits a federal court to enjoin state court action when a federal court has decided a suit on its substantive merits has equal force when a critical underlying issue unrelated to the substantive merits of the action has been litigated to finality.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cynthia E. Canady, Marva Jean Saunders, Both Parties Individually and Representing a Class of Similarly Situated Persons Mischelle A. Greer Jimmy D. Hunt Tamara A. Hunt Kim Y. Nickerson Esther E. Moten Kerry L. Butler Nadine Farris Charles Lockridge, Coleman McClain Evalin McClain John Hammonds Alma Hammonds Sara Kenner Clarence Kenner, Intervenor v. Allstate Insurance Company American Economy Insurance Company American Family Mutual Insurance Company American States Insurance Company American States Preferred Insurance Company Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company Farmers & Merchants Insurance Company Farmers Insurance Exchange Federal Insurance Company Fire Insurance Company Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Mid-Century Insurance Company Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company, Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company Shelter General Insurance Company Shelter Mutual Insurance Company State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, State Farm General Insurance Company, Vigilant Insurance Company Old Reliable Insurance Company Sea Insurance Company of America Sun Insurance Office of America, Inc., Marva Jean Saunders Cynthia E. Canady Mischelle A. Greer Coleman Douglas McClain Evalin Elaine McClain Kerry L. Butler Kim Yvette Nickerson Tamara A. Hunt John Henry Hammonds Esther Elaine Moten v. Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company, Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Safeco Insurance Company of America American Economy Insurance Company American States Preferred Insurance Company Federal Insurance Company Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company Vigilant Insurance Company American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Marva Jean Saunders Cynthia E. Canady Mischelle A. Greer Coleman Douglas McClain Evalin Elaine McClain Kerry L. Butler Kim Yvette Nickerson Tamara A. Hunt John Henry Hammonds Esther Elaine Moten v. Allstate Insurance Company American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange Fire Insurance Exchange Mid-Century Insurance Company Shelter General Insurance Company Shelter Mutual Insurance Company State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company State Farm General Insurance Company
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the legislative policy that permits a federal court to enjoin state court action when a federal court has decided a suit on its substantive merits has equal force when a critical underlying issue unrelated to the substantive merits of the action has been litigated to finality.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the mere fact that is pursuing a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district court's intervention in state court proceedings.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spirit Lake Tribe v. Alvin Jaeger
P’ship, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Mayo v. GMAC Mortgage
P’Ship, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995) (concern that state court might pronounce judgment first and leave district court with little to decide was consequence of nation’s dual *620 system of independent state and federal courts, not legal justification for staying state-court proceedings).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steve Warnock v. Charles Archer
P’ship, 56 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Bankamerica v.
In NBA, this court reversed a district court’s injunction against a parallel state-court proceeding, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act did not permit the district court to enjoin the state proceeding merely to prevent the state court from pronouncing judgment first: Although the district court expressed concern that the state court might pronounce judgment first and the district court would have little, if anything, left to decide, this pessimistic forecast is a natural consequence -10- of the nation’s dual system of independent state and federal courts, and not a legal justification…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
In NBA, this court reversed a district court's injunction against a parallel state-court proceeding, concluding that the Anti- Injunction Act did not permit the district court to enjoin the state proceeding merely to prevent the state court from pronouncing judgment first: 26 Although the district court expressed concern that the state court might pronounce judgment first and the district court would have little, if anything, left to decide, this pessimistic forecast is a natural consequence of the nation's dual system of independent state and federal courts, and not a legal justification for …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northland Ins. Companies v. Blaylock
P’ship, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995) (providing that primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the court reaches the merits and can grant full, effective relief if warranted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells' Dairy, Inc. v. Estate of Richardson
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995); Royal Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Graham Webb International v. Helene Curtis Inc.
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dominium Management Services, Inc. v. Nationwide Housing Group
See In re SDDS, Inc., 97 F.3d 1030, 1039 (8th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the issues being litigated in state court were “actually and finally decided” in the federal action); National Basketball Ass’n v. Minnesota Professional Basketball, Ltd., 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Chick Kam Choo and stating that the district court did not exceed the scope of the relitigation exception by enjoining issues already decided in the federal court); Rath v. Gallup, Inc., 51 F.3d 791, 792-93 (8th Cir.1995) (analyzing issues which were “actually litigated” for collateral estoppel purposes…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perkins v. City of St. Paul
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gunderson v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995); Royal Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Sdds, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir.1995) (“The legislative policy that permits a federal court to enjoin state court action when a federal court has decided a suit on its substantive merits has equal force when a critical underlying issue unrelated to the substantive merits of the action has been litigated to finality.” (quotations and citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re:SDDS, INC. v.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 1995) ("The legislative policy that permits a federal court to enjoin state court action when a federal court has decided a suit on its substantive merits has equal force when a critical underlying issue unrelated to the substantive merits of the action has been litigated to finality." (quotations and citations omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Astraea Aviation Services, Inc.
Ptnp., 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sac & Fox Tribe of v. Homer Bear, Jr.
See, e.g., Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Minnesota Prof’l Basketball, L.P., 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting the interlocutory nature of appeals from preliminary injunctions) and Haz.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa / Meskwaki Casino Litigation
See, e.g., Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Minnesota Profl Basketball, L.P., 56 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.1995) (noting the interlocutory nature of appeals from preliminary injunctions) and Haz.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Amy Friedman
v.
Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc., and Other Fidelity Entities, Real Names Unknown Fidelity Service Corporation National Financial Services Corporation
v.
Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc., and Other Fidelity Entities, Real Names Unknown Fidelity Service Corporation National Financial Services Corporation
94-3433.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 8, 1995.
Published
Amy FRIEDMAN, Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC., and other Fidelity
entities, real names unknown; Fidelity Service
Corporation; National Financial
Services Corporation, Appellees.
No. 94-3433.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 4, 1995.
Decided May 8, 1995.
Frederick S. Cassman, Omaha, NE, for appellant.
Kathleen M. Quinn, Omaha, NE, for appellee.
Before FAGG, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
Amy Friedman appeals the district court's judgment on the pleadings in her action to recover funds that Fidelity Investments turned over to the State of New York according to a tax levy. Friedman argues Fidelity should not have honored the levy because the funds it turned over were located in a Massachusetts account and not "within the jurisdiction of the State of New York." Having carefully considered Friedman's claims, we agree with the district court that her jurisdictional arguments are misplaced and that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Sec. 5209 (McKinney 1978) provides defendants with a complete defense to liability. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.