Mr. Boston Distiller Corp. And Consolidated Distributors of Tampa, Inc. v. Richard A. Pallot, Etc., 469 F.2d 337

Mr. Boston Distiller Corp. And Consolidated Distributors of Tampa, Inc. v. Richard A. Pallot, Etc.

469 F.2d 337 | 5th Cir. | 1972

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Mr. Boston Distiller Corporation has attempted through various efforts to have a Florida tax statute declared unconstitutional. Pertinent to its attempts is the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (1964), which provides that the federal district courts shall not interfere with state taxes where an efficient remedy is available in state courts. After unreservedly presenting its case to the Florida courts, and losing (finally before the Florida Supreme Court1), the corporation now resorts to the federal courts by this suit. At issue is whether the Tax Injunction Act, by confining appellant’s initial choice of forum to the state courts, provides an exception to the doctrine of res judicata for a subsequent suit in federal court. Under the circumstances here we believe res judicata applies and prevents further consideration by us. Accordingly, the District Judge properly dismissed the case, 342 F.Supp. 770. Autokefalos Orthodox Spiritual Church of Saint George, The Tropeophoros v. Hallahan, S.D.N.Y.1952, 103 F.Supp. 389; 1 A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.207 (1965).

Affirmed.

. Fairelotli v. Mr. Boston Distiller Corp., Fla.1970, 245 So.2d 240.

Rehearing

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied. See E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 5th Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 1141, 1148, 1149, n.3; Battle v. Cherry, 339 F.Supp. 186, 191-193 (N.D.Ga.1972).