22 U.S.C. § 2283
Eligible projects
Another section 463 of Pub. L. 87–195 is classified to section 2273 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (2015)
“JURISDICTION 4 Under the Anti-Injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , this Court may not grant “an injunction to stay the 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…”
Raymond P. Zajac and Helen Ann Zajac v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul (1990)
“It held that there is no express or implied private right of action for failure to comply with the borrowers’ rights provisions of the Act, that the Act did not require an independent appraisal of the Zajacs’ land, 1 that the Bank’s decision to deny restructuring was a…”
Smith v. Oakland County Circuit Court (2004)
“22 U.S.C. § 2283 . Defendants argue that the Second Amended Complaint, though couched in terms of a declaratory judgment action, is in effect an action to stay *1070 proceedings in the Oakland County Court and, therefore, is barred by § 2283.”
Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers (1988)
“1974), found warrant in an express exception to the Anti-injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2283 (1982), 4 to prohibit defendants in a federal school desegregation suit from pursuing a state court action invoking a state statute expressly designed to frustrate school desegregation,…”
United States v. Schurkman (2013)
“§ 1651 (a), and the Anti-Injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , has the authority to enjoin a party from litigating in state *131 court issues arising out of a consent decree which settled a civil action brought against the party in federal court by the United States.”
Lopresto v. Department of Revenue, Florida (In Re Iorizzo) (1990)
“Under 22 U.S.C. § 2283 4 as authorized by 11 U.”
Ranch v. Farm Credit Bank of Omaha (1991)
“It held that there is no express or implied private right of action for failure to comply with the borrowers’ rights provisions of the Act, that the Act did not require an independent appraisal of the Zajacs’ land, that the Bank’s decision to deny restructuring was a commercial…”
Ballenger v. Mobil Oil Corp. (2005)
“The district court concluded that the claims and/or issues asserted in the Texas action had already been litigated in the federal courts and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to an injunction under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2283 .…”
United States v. Mary Akin (1974)
“The section of the Judicial Code which prohibits injunctions against State Court actions, 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , was interposed. But the Supreme Court held that it was inapplicable to the United States when it was the suitor.”
Wingate v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corp. (2005)
“See 22 U.S.C. § 2283 . That statute was intended to “prevent the wasteful and harassing revisiting of previously decided matters.”
United States v. Donald Dougherty, Jr. (2015)
“” 22 U.S.C. § 2283 . This “relitigation exception” permits an injunction “to prevent state litigation of a claim or issue that previously was presented to and decided by the federal court.”
Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance v. Zang (2000)
“To compel arbitration in the face of a state court action in which the same claims are being litigated invokes the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.