Martingale LLC Bridge the Gap, Inc. v. City of Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• agreeing that “the Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent a court from enjoining the parties from commencing state court proceedings, as opposed to enjoining the parties from proceeding with already-filed state actions.”
• “Martingale and Bridge the Gap’s argument is clever, but unpersuasive. Their ultimate goal is to halt the state court condemnation proceedings, a result that either an injunction or a declaratory judgment would accomplish equally well”
• “[W]here, as here, declaratory relief would have the same practical effect as an injunction, the Anti–Injunction Act precludes the court from granting a declaratory judgment.”
• court may sua sponte raise Anti-Injunction Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).