Search Results:

 593us1r34_mlho.pdf
in a tax penalty. Pp. 216–226. (a) The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U. S. C. § 7421(a), provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection

 Home - Supreme Court of the United States
Code of Conduct for Justices these “toppers” were almost exclusively reserved for important functions and formal occasions. For Supreme Court Justices, such events included Click on the arrows or dots

 19-930 CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS (05/17/2021)
in a tax penalty. Pp. 5–16. (a) The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection

 606us2r66_j426.pdf
251, 257, 32 Eng. Rep. 102, 104 (“[Y]ou cannot have an injunction except against a party to the suit”). In sum, under longstanding equity practice in

 24-993 Olivier v. City of Brandon (03/20/2026)
U. S., at 485. And such a suit could lead to “parallellitigation” and “conflicting” judgments about the same conduct, with the §1983 suit suggesting that the plaintiff should be released even

 19-840 California v. Texas (06/17/2021)
is unconstitutional. But just like suits for everyother type of remedy, declaratory-judgment actions must satisfy Article III’s

 604us1r12_8njq.pdf
U. S. 7, 20. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial can occur, see University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U. S