FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 155
Stay of State court proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 2283
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter155 — INJUNCTIONS; THREE-JUDGE COURTS
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (Stay of State court proceedings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 2283.
Text
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota
534 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court, 2000)
American Heritage Life Insurance v. Orr
294 F.3d 702 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Superior Court
679 P.2d 14 (California Supreme Court, 1984)
Perez v. Massachusetts General Hospital
193 F.R.D. 43 (D. Puerto Rico, 2000)
Vms Securities Litigation v. Prudential Securities Incorporated
103 F.3d 1317 (Seventh Circuit, 1996)
United States v. State of Washington
626 F. Supp. 1405 (W.D. Washington, 1985)
Thi of New Mexico at Vida Encantada, LLC v. Lovato
848 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (D. New Mexico, 2012)
Smith v. Meyers
843 F. Supp. 2d 499 (D. Delaware, 2012)
National Basketball Ass'n v. Minnesota Professional Basketball, Ltd. Partnership
56 F.3d 866 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation Park v. Chattem, Inc.
227 F.R.D. 553 (W.D. Washington, 2004)
United States v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Branch Viii
675 F.2d 946 (Seventh Circuit, 1982)
Munoz v. County of Imperial
604 F.2d 1174 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
In the Matter of Magnus Harmonica Corporation, Debtor, Samuel S. Salitan David Little, Phillip Gustin, Irving Jacobs, Leo B. Levin, Renee Kendell Dann, Jerome Kendell, Allen Kendell, Edward Bottner and M. Fred Hirsch, Trading as Credit Industrial Company, a Limited Partnership
233 F.2d 803 (Third Circuit, 1956)
Rath v. Gallup, Inc.
51 F.3d 791 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
Phelps v. Hamilton
122 F.3d 1309 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)
Rivet v. Regions Bank Of Louisiana
108 F.3d 576 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Melikian v. Avent
300 F. Supp. 516 (N.D. Mississippi, 1969)
City Investing Company Gdv v. Simcox
633 F.2d 56 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Chamblee v. Espy
907 F. Supp. 152 (E.D. North Carolina, 1995)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §379 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §265, 36 Stat. 1162).
An exception as to acts of Congress relating to bankruptcy was omitted and the general exception substituted to cover all exceptions.
The phrase "in aid of its jurisdiction" was added to conform to section 1651 of this title and to make clear the recognized power of the Federal courts to stay proceedings in State cases removed to the district courts.
The exceptions specifically include the words "to protect or "effectuate its judgments," for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without power to enjoin relitigation of cases and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 62 S.Ct. 139, 314 U.S. 118, 86 L.Ed. 100. A vigorous dissenting opinion (62 S.Ct. 148) notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts, of the United States to protect their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress intended no change).
Therefore the revised section restores the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §379 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §265, 36 Stat. 1162).
An exception as to acts of Congress relating to bankruptcy was omitted and the general exception substituted to cover all exceptions.
The phrase "in aid of its jurisdiction" was added to conform to section 1651 of this title and to make clear the recognized power of the Federal courts to stay proceedings in State cases removed to the district courts.
The exceptions specifically include the words "to protect or "effectuate its judgments," for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without power to enjoin relitigation of cases and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 62 S.Ct. 139, 314 U.S. 118, 86 L.Ed. 100. A vigorous dissenting opinion (62 S.Ct. 148) notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts, of the United States to protect their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress intended no change).
Therefore the revised section restores the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 2283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/2283.