Andrew B. Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank and Schreiner Bancshares

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the possibility of inconsistent judgments is insufficient to invoke the ‘aid of jurisdiction’ exception, to justify enjoining concurrent state foreclosure action
• holding that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibited a federal court from issuing a preliminary injunction that interfered with state court foreclosure proceedings pending at the time of the injunction
• concluding, after finding no applicable exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, that “the district court cannot enjoin Schreiner Bank’s prosecution of the . . . state foreclosure action”
• holding “the Anti–Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes any stay of [the pending] state court foreclosure proceedings,” partly because actions such as this one are not in rem proceedings
• finding appealable an (internal quotation marks omitted), in order to be appealable order granting relief that “[n]either party had moved formally under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1
• “Because of the importance of the bond requirement, failure to require the posting of a bond or other security constitutes grounds for reversal of an injunction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).