28 U.S.C. § 1341
Taxes by States
The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,582
cases (214 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Hibbs v. Winn
Hibbs v. Winn (2004)
“The question presented is whether the Tax Injunction Act (TIA or Act), 28 U. S. C. § 1341 , which prohibits a lower federal court from restraining "the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law," bars the suit.”
IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES (2021)
“Sanders , the primary authority invoked by taxpayers: (1) We originally held interest was not paid on an ad valorem tax refund; (2) Federal courts authorized using equity to award interest as a form of damages in some, but not all, state tax refund controversies adjudicated in…”
Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Edmondson (2010)
“Oklahoma argued that the Chambers lacked standing, that certain defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 , deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin Section 9.”
Trainor v. Hernandez (1977)
“[10] The doctrine in Younger developed from the same equitable principles that have been applied to interpret 28 U. S. C. § 1341 . [11] In cases in which this Court has been confronted *466 with that statutory restriction, it has not been reluctant to decide in the first…”
Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank (1981)
“" 28 U. S. C. § 1341 . The question we must decide in this case is whether an Illinois remedy which requires property owners contesting their property taxes to pay under protest and if successful obtain a refund without interest in two years is "a plain, speedy and efficient…”
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary (1981)
“The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that such suits were barred by both 28 U. S. C. § 1341 (Tax Injunction Act) and the principle *102 of comity, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed by an equally divided court sitting…”
Wayside Church v. Van Buren County (2017)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1341 . This statute is jurisdictional, Hedgepeth v.”
Perez v. Ledesma (1971)
“Much of the hostility to federal injunctions referred to in the Senate report was hostility to their use against state officials seeking to enforce state regulatory statutes carrying criminal sanctions; this was the strong feeling that produced the Three-Judge Court Act in 1910,…”
California v. Grace Brethren Church (1982)
“We do not reach this substantive question, however, holding instead that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341 , [2] deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear these challenges.”
Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1982)
“150 must be read in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1341 . 28 U.S.C. § 1341 prohibits federal district courts from enjoining the collection of taxes under state law "where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”
De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund Ex Rel. Bowers (1997)
“5, of the possibility that jurisdiction over this case is barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341 , the Court proceeds to decide the merits of respondents' Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-emption challenge.”
Steffel v. Thompson (1974)
“§ 1342 , and the Tax Injunction Act of 1937, 28 U. S. C. § 1341 . The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act was intended to provide an alternative to injunctions against state officials, except where there was a federal policy against federal adjudication of the class of litigation…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) — 1 case
Greene v. u.s.[erratum] (2006)
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.