E. F. Hutton Co. v. Cook

1 Citing case

  1. Ven-Fuel, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury

    673 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion not to hear a first-filed declaratory judgment action that had been filed "in apparent anticipation" of a direct action by the opposing party

    One equitable consideration in such decision is whether the declaratory judgment action was filed in apparent anticipation of the other pending proceeding. Factors, Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 579 F.2d 215, 219 (2d Cir. 1978) (opinion by Ingraham, J.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1215, 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979); Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. Marshall, 381 F.2d at 663; E. F. Hutton Co. v. Cook, 292 F. Supp. 409, 410 (S.D.Tex. 1968). Here, on February 13, 1980, the Government advised Ven-Fuel that if Ven-Fuel did not pay a certain assessed penalty "forthwith," then the Government would institute judicial proceedings to collect that penalty.