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
R. Abcarian v. Meldon Levine (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 (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 Service Co. (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 National Bank (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 (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 (2004)
“…or compliance with, " public-utility rate orders made by state regulatory bodies. 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…”
Turnage v. Britton (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 Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans (1989)
“The District Court granted the Council's motion to dismiss, holding that pursuant to the Johnson Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1342 , it had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, and that even if it had jurisdiction it would be compelled by Burford v.”
Alex Cannara v. Karla Nemeth (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 Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary (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. Public Service Commission (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 (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…”
Monongahela Power Co. v. Schriber (2004)
“Defendant-Commissioners argue that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case in light of the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 et seq.”
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (1964)
“3-9 on the Johnson Act of 1934, 28 U. S. C. § 1342 . [4] See S.”
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Patch (1998)
“1997) (“Patch I”), and rejected a Commission claim that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 . The court said that its March 21, 1997, amended TRO would remain in effect pending further order by the district court.”
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,…”
In re Jefferson County (2012)
“Although the District Court Judge determined in June 2009, that there was justification for appointment of a receiver, he abstained from this request based on the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , not allowing federal appointment of a receiver with rate setting authority.”
Zucker v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (1974)
“In support of their motions, both defendants advance the following independent grounds allegedly requiring dismissal of this action: (1) the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 ; (2) the exclusive original and primary jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; (3) the…”
Gulf Water Benefaction Company, Peoples National Utility Company v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas and the State (1982)
“Both the Bankruptcy Court and District Court before us ruled that the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , deprived them of jurisdiction to consider the challenges and left Gulf *463 Water to pursue its remedies in Texas state court.”
Dawes v. Philadelphia Gas Commission (1976)
“Defendants oppose class treatment and have, in addition, filed motions to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12, on the following grounds: (1) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) abstention; and (4) the bar…”
Shrader v. Horton (1979)
“The Johnson Act Defendants’ first argument is that the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , precludes this court from exercising jurisdiction of this case.”
Nucor Corporation v. Nebraska Public Power District (1990)
“A panel of this court heard argument and then remanded for additional findings on the issue of whether the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1982), required us to hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this action.”
Hanna Mining Company v. Minnesota Power and Light Company (1984)
“1395 , dismissed the action on two grounds: first, that the action is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1976) (the Johnson Act) and, second, that certain other parties were “indispensable” within the meaning of FED.”
Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates (2011)
“…and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State. 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (emphasis added). In the Johnson Act, Congress made explicit its intention to preclude subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. In addition, the legislative history of the Act makes it plain…”
Gte North, Inc. v. John G. Strand (2000)
“971 (1941), are met, or if abstention is warranted under the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1994). <a href="/opinion/103842/burford-v-sun-oil-co/" aria-description="Citation for case: Burford v.”
Sherman Gottlieb v. Carnival Corporation, No. 05-2733 Cv (2006)
“The Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , states: 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 agency or a rate-making body of a State…”
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Cuomo (1987)
“Defendant Cuomo and the PSC defendants also argue that the Johnson Act of 1934, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , strips this court of jurisdiction to hear LILCO’s claims pertaining to the Used and Useful Act.”
Adrian Energy Associates v. Michigan Public Service Commission, Consumers Energy Company, Intervenor-Defendant (2007)
“1424 (1943), and the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 . The district court did not address these other challenges to its jurisdiction.”
Wade Tennyson v. Gas Service Company, and Kansas Gas and Electric Company (1974)
“The defendants moved the court to dismiss the action on the ground that 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (the Johnson Act) removed the court’s jurisdiction in the premises.”
Carlin Communication, Inc., Etc. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Etc. (1986)
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction As a threshold consideration, we must determine if the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1342 . The Johnson Act provides that: The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or…”
Sidney Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Arizona Corporation Commission (1991)
“28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has never directly confronted the question of the Johnson Act’s applicability to actions for declaratory relief or compensatory damages.”
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (2002)
“The Johnson Act The commissioners of the PSC also invoke the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , as a jurisdictional bar to'Count III of the amended complaint.”
South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (1976)
“However, the Intervenor contends that the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , deprives this Court of jurisdiction.”
Kalinsky v. Long Island Lighting Co. (1980)
“Defendant argues: (i) federal courts do not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim under the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 ; (ii) the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can •be granted; (iii) the action should be dismissed for lack of a…”
Marshall County Board of Education v. Marshall County Gas District (1993)
“During a hearing on discovery disputes, the magistrate judge sua sponte directed the parties to submit briefs on the issues of (1) subject matter jurisdiction, (2) the grounds for the constitutional rights allegedly violated, and (3) the applicability of the Johnson Act, 28…”
Charles T. Miller v. Nys Public Service Commission and Jamaica Water Company (1986)
“The district court accepted jurisdiction and ordered a refund of the hose charge plus costs and fees, reasoning that the Johnson Act of 1934, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1982) — which has excluded federal courts from enjoining compliance with any order affecting State public utility rates…”
New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1983)
“Whether, on the facts of this case, the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1342 (1976), bars this Court from entering an injunction against the MPUC.”
May Trucking Company v. Oregon Department of Transportation (2004)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1342 . The Tax Injunction Act was modeled in part on the Johnson Act.”
Alvin Lucas, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, a Wisconsin Pub (1973)
“10 Finally, we note that our disposition of the case avoids the necessity for eonsidering the possible applicability of the Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 , and the troublesome question of whether decisions such as Alabama Public Service Commission v.”
Rieser v. District of Columbia (1977)
“§ 1983 , while the present case involves common-law tort and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1342 : “[W]e decide here only the issue of so-called ‘pendent party’ jurisdiction with respect to a claim brought under § 1343(3) and § 1983.”
Bennett v. Jefferson County (2014)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Tully (1980)
Desoto Cab Co. v. Picker (2016)
US West, Inc. v. Nelson (1998)
In Re Jefferson County, Ala. (2012)
J.E.F.M. v. Holder (2015)
S.C. Elec. v. Randall (2018)
Sosa v. Lantz (2009)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1245 v. Public Service Commission (1980)
In re Gillis (1988)
McCray v. Burrell (1975)
Flythe v. Davis (1976)
Pugach v. Dollinger (1960)
Davis v. Weir (1974)
Public Service Co. v. Patch (2000)
Davis v. City of Little Rock (1955)
United States v. New York (1983)
Gaito v. Prasse (1963)
Scheibe v. Wayne County (2025)
Turnage v. Britton (2020)
Cannara v. Nemeth (2020)
Blumberg v. Pinellas County (1993)
Cody v. Union Electric Co. (1976)
Jabo v. Jebreil (2021)
Mesa Garcia v. Riniker (2025)
GTE North Inc v. Strand (2000)
Adrian Energy v. MI Pub Serv (2007)
GTE Florida, Inc. v. Clark (1997)
Cescon v. Dove (1992)
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.