Watters v. Crisp

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that to the extent the plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief included a “prospective component,” that relief was not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act
• “The Anti–Injunction Act does not prevent a federal court from restraining a party from instituting future state proceedings.” (citing Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 484 n.2 (1965)); In re Baldwin–United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 1985)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).