28 U.S.C. § 1342
Rate orders of State agencies
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(1) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, par. 1, 36 Stat. 1091; May 14, 1934, ch. 283, § 1, 48 Stat. 775; Aug. 21, 1937, ch. 726, § 1, 50 Stat. 738; Apr. 20, 1940, ch. 117, 54 Stat. 143).
This section rearranges and restates the fourth sentence of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Other provisions of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1331, 1332, 1341, 1345, 1354, and 1359 of this title.
Words “at law or in equity” before “in the courts of such State” were omitted as unnecessary.
Words “civil action” were substituted for “suit,” in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Word “operation” was substituted for “enforcement, operation or execution” for the same reason.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 200
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: R. Abcarian v. Meldon Levine, 972 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2020).
R. Abcarian v. Meldon Levine, 972 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2020). “The district court held that these claims failed as a matter of law on their merits, but we do not reach that issue because we conclude that, under the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , the court lacked jurisdiction over these claims.”
U.S. West Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 1999). “12(b)(1) dismissal of the case pursuant to the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , in favor of Defendants Gloria Tristani, Eric P.”
Hill v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 323 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2003). “The district court dismissed the action on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (“the Johnson Act” or “§ 1342”) and this appeal followed.”
Rosewell v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 450 U.S. 503 (1981). “[16] The Johnson Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1342 (emphasis added), states in pertinent part: "The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates chargeable by a public utility and made by a State administrative…”
California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982). “Both the Senate and House Reports, as well as the congressional debates of the Act, expressly rely on the congressional purpose underlying the Johnson Act of 1934, 28 U. S. C. § 1342 , which divests the district courts of jurisdiction of any suit to "enjoin, suspend, or restrain…”
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004). “28 U. S. C. § 1342 (emphasis added). The TIA does not prohibit interference with "the operation of, or compliance with," state tax laws; rather, § 1341 proscribes interference only with those aspects of state tax regimes that are needed to produce revenue i.”
Turnage v. Britton, 29 F.4th 232 (5th Cir. 2022). “The utility contends that the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , makes state court the only proper forum for this suit.”
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989). “NOPSI responded by filing an action for injunctive and declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting that federal law required the Council to allow it to recover, through an increase in retail rates, its FERC-allocated…”
Alex Cannara v. Karla Nemeth, 21 F.4th 1169 (9th Cir. 2021). “Opinion by Judge Forrest SUMMARY ** Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 The panel affirmed the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction an action brought by public utility ratepayers challenging California Assembly Bill 1054, which addresses the…”
Fair Assessment in Real Est. Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981). “Neither the legislative history of the Act nor that of its precursor, 28 U. S. C. § 1342 , suggests that Congress intended that federal-court deference in state tax matters be limited to the actions enumerated in those sections.”
United States v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 422 F. Supp. 676 (D. Maryland 1976). “In their motion to dismiss, defendants contend that plaintiffs are not entitled to relief because (1) the suit is barred by the Johnson Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1962)), (2) plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their available state remedies, and (3) the court should abstain from…”
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974). “"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…”
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.