green
Positive treatment
18.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1988 ·
…issues being litigated in the state court proceeding could not be separated from the issues and relief involved in the federal court suit
at p. 384
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dakotans for Health v. Noem
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Docket 67 at 15-21; see also Thomason v. Cooper, 254 F.2d 808, 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1958) (affirming district court’s order enjoining state court order barring federally ordered integration of schools); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383, 383-84 (4th Cir. 1974) (affirming district court’s order enjoining state case seeking to bar federally ordered integration of schools); Doe v. Ceci, 517 F.2d 1203, 1204 (7th Cir. 1975) (affirming district court’s order enjoining state order barring funding for abortion procedures that the federal court found permissible); …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Troupe v. Young
Swann v. Charlotte– Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir. 1974); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 510 F. Supp. 1104, 1107 (W.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tooele County v. United States
(2×)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir.1974). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Payne v. Fawkes
Ed. 850 (1935) (in rem federal and state proceedings); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir. 1974) (express exception to Anti-Injunction Act which allowed federal court to use its All Writs Act powers to enj oin state court proceedings); and National Private Truck Council v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 515 U.S. 582 , 590-91, 115 S. Ct. 2351 , 132 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Naegele v. Albers
Bd., 646 *129 F.2d 925, 943-44 (5th Cir.1981); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 501 F.2d 383, 383-84 (4th Cir.1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America
Co., 877 F.2d 877, 880-81 (11th Cir.1989) (class action case had reached judgment stage and state court litigation would interfere with administration of post-judgment proceedings); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 337-38 (2d Cir.1985) (MDL class action where class certified, settlement agreements reached, and only district court approval of those remained); Carlough v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 10 F.3d 189, 195, 202-04 (3d Cir.1993) (class action where settlement imminent); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 383-84 (4th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (class action case had…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
Co., 877 F.2d 877, 880-81 (11th Cir. 1989) (class action case had reached judgment stage and state court litigation would interfere with administration of post-judgment proceedings); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 337-38 (2d Cir. 1985) (MDL class action where class certified, settlement agreements reached, and only district court approval of those remained); Carlough v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 10 F.3d 189, 195, 202-04 (3d Cir. 1993) (class action where settlement imminent); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 383-84 (4th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (class action case…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Antonia Tolbert v. Monsanto Company
See Valley v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 646 F.2d 925 , 943-44 (5th Cir.1981); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 501 F.2d 383, 383-84 (4th Cir.1974).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burr & Forman v. Blair
See Valley v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 646 F.2d 925 , 943-44 (5th Cir.1981); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 501 F.2d 383, 383-84 (4th Cir.1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SR International Business Insurance v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC
Co., 877 F.2d 877, 879-82 (11th Cir.1989) (affirming an injunction where the federal court had entered a final judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement and explicitly retained jurisdiction over the case); United States v. Dist. of Columbia, 654 F.2d 802 , 803-05, 809-811 & n. 16 (D.C.Cir.1981) (affirming, under both the aid-of-jurisdiction and the protect-or-effectuate exceptions, an injunction against en *366 forcement of a state order that would have impaired the District Court’s ability to enforce a prior order that endorsed a particular site for sludge disposal); Swann v. Charlotte-Me…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.
Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 545 (9th Cir.1998) (injunction necessary to effectuate a settlement agreement over which federal court had retained jurisdiction); Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535, 540 (9th Cir.1994) (injunction necessary to preserve integrity of exclusive federal jurisdiction); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 501 F.2d 383, 383-384 (4th Cir.) (invoking Act in school desegregation case); Winkler, 101 F.3d at 1202 (invoking Act in multi-district litigation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gunderson v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir.1974); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 510 F.Supp. 1104, 1107 (W.D.Mich.1981); see also Winkler, 101 F.3d at 1202 (recognizing exception for school de *824 segregation cases); Garcia, 862 F.2d at 909 (recognizing school desegregation exception); see generally 17 Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 4225 at at 531.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d at 384 (affirming issuance of injunction under Anti-Injunction Act because “issues being litigated in the state court proceeding could not be separated from the issues and relief involved in the federal court suit”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yonkers Racing Corporation v. City Of Yonkers
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d at 384 (affirming issuance of injunction under Anti-Injunction Act because "issues being litigated in the state court proceeding could not be separated from the issues and relief involved in the federal court suit").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. Ceci
Section 2283 allows a state court proceeding having that effect to be stayed by a federal court. 3 Thomason v. Cooper, 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958); Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir. 1974); Mapp v. Board of Education, 341 F.Supp. 193, 196 (E.D.Tenn.1972), aff’d, 477 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1022 , 94 S.Ct. 445 , 38 L.Ed.2d 313 (1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jane Doe, Etc. v. Louis J. Ceci, Circuit Court Judge, Milwaukee County, Jane Doe, Etc. v. Louis J. Ceci, Etc., and Richard Flynn, M.D., Etc., Proposed Intervening
Section 2283 allows a state court proceeding having that effect to be stayed by a federal court. 3 Thomason v. Cooper, 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir. 1974); Mapp v. Board of Education, 341 F.Supp. 193, 196 (E.D.Tenn.1972), aff'd, 477 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1022 , 94 S.Ct. 445 , 38 L.Ed.2d 313 (1973). 10 It is of course irrelevant for present purposes that defendant contends that the order in Doe v. Mundy was erroneous insofar as it required the application of county funds to pay for elective…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mannings v. School Board of Hillsborough County
Id. at 811 ; see Swann v. Charlotte — Meck lenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir.1974) (where the issues raised in state court were intertwined with issues and relief implicated in the federal action, the district court could properly enjoin the state proceedings); Grenchik v. Mandel, 373 F.Supp. 1298 (D.Md.1973). 5.
cited
Cited "see"
Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.
See City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d at 864 (citing Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir.1974)).
cited
Cited "see"
Toribio Garcia v. Juan Bauza-Salas
See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir.1974); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 510 F.Supp. 1104, 1107-08 (W.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Battle v. Liberty National Life Insurance
See, for example, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. District of Columbia Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland (Intervenor-Deft.). State Water Control Board v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland (Intervenor-Deft.). State Water Control Board, an Agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland (Intervenor-Deft.). United States of America v. District of Columbia Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland. State Water Control Board v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland. United States of America v. District of Columbia Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland
See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1974); Grenchik v. Mandel, 373 F.Supp. 1298 (D.Md.1973). 19 In New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 456 F.Supp. 85 (E.D.N.Y.1978), the district court enjoined a state proceeding which would have interfered with its disposition of a civil rights case over which it had acquired jurisdiction five years earlier, noting that the state court plaintiffs' claims would properly have been brought before the federal court.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. District of Columbia
See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1974); Grenchik v. Mandel, 373 F.Supp. 1298 (D.Md.1973). 19 In New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 466 F.Supp. 85 (E.D.N.Y.1978), the district court enjoined a state proceeding which would have interfered with its disposition of a civil rights case over which it had acquired jurisdiction five years earlier, noting that the state court plaintiffs’ claims would properly have been brought before the federal court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hayward v. Clay
(2×)
See Swann v. Charlotte-Meeklenburg Board of Education, 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Schurkman
Id.; see also Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383, 384 (4th Cir.1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Alton Box Board Company v. Esprit De Corp.
See, e.g., Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1974) (school desegregation).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aaron Henry v. First National Bank of Clarksdale v. Mississippi Action for Progress, Inc.
See Doe v. Ceci, 7 Cir., 1975, 517 F.2d 1203, 1206-07 ; Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4226, at 347 (1978); see also Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 4 Cir., 1974, 501 F.2d 383 ; Montgomery County Board of Education v. Shelton, N.D.Miss., 1970, 327 F.Supp. 811 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James E. SWANN Et Al., Appellees,
v.
the CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, Etc., Et Al., Defendants. and H. D. Taylor Et Al., Added Defendants and Appellants
v.
the CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, Etc., Et Al., Defendants. and H. D. Taylor Et Al., Added Defendants and Appellants
74-1201.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 23, 1974.
501 F.2d 383
Hugh J. Beard, Jr., Charlotte, N. C., for appellants., Julius LeVonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C. (Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lan-ning, Charlotte, N. C., Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, and Norman J. Chachkin, New York City, on brief), for appellees., William W. Sturges, Charlotte, N. C., did not file a brief but appeared in person at oral argument for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.
Haynsworth, Winter, Butzner, Russell, Field, Widener.
Cited by 42 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
This appeal results from the issuance of a district court injunction prohibiting the parties named here as additional defendants from further prosecuting a pending action in North Carolina state courts, and presents only the narrow question of whether or not the prosecution of the state court suit was properly enjoined.
The additional defendants here are Guardians ad Litem for white students who, as plaintiffs, had alleged in the state court suit against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (Board) and several school administrators that the Board had failed to apply the standards set out in N.C.G.S. § 115-307, applicable to “exceptionally talented children,” and sought an injunction requiring adherence to the statute. The gist of that complaint was that the Board had not followed the standards set out in N.C.G.S. § 115-307 so that a quota of black students (some of whom were alleged to be not qualified) would take part in the program and in so doing had necessarily excluded some white students (who were alleged to be qualified) from being in the advanced curriculum classes established for such exceptional students. The district court added the plaintiffs in the state court proceeding as defendants here at the instance of Swann, et al, the original plaintiffs in this suit which has been pending in the[*384] federal courts since 1965, and the injunction issued because the court concluded that the issues being litigated in the state court proceeding could not be separated from the issues and relief involved in the federal court suit. The Board’s position in this matter is relatively neutral, its primary concern being to avoid possibly conflicting orders from state and federal courts.
We conclude that the injunctive relief was necessary in aid of the district court’s jurisdiction, and thus was proper as an express exception to the Anti-injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. [1] The district court had previously ordered, for example, “That pupils of all grades be assigned in such a way that as nearly as practicable the various schools at various grade levels have about the same proportion of black and white students.” Swann v. Board, 311 F.Supp. 265, 268 (W.D.N.C.1970). It is, therefore, apparent that the pending state suit could affect the Board’s efforts to comply with previous federal court desegregation orders. The claim of the additional defendants that the Board is now discriminating against white children cannot be separated from the order previously entered in the district court.
We note that the parties agree that the merits of the contentions of the plaintiffs in the state court suit may be decided in the district court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
1
. § 2283. Stay of State court proceedings A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.