United States v. Woodworth
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. The appellants contend that, as this suit was for an injunction restraining the collection of a state tax, the district court, Because of the last sentence of 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1) [now § 1341], lacked jurisdiction. We cannot agree. We think Congress did not intend this statutory provision, added by amendment in 1937, to apply to the United States which was not specifically named therein. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 272, 273, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884. The Committee reports support this interpretation. See also City of Springfield v. United…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Van Brocklin v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- City of Springfield v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1938
- United States v. City of BuffaloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Department of Employment v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. LivingstonDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1959
- CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES, MONT. v. MoeDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1975
- United States v. Bureau Of Revenue Of State Of New MexicoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1961
- United States v. Department of Revenue of State of Ill.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1961
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.