dismissing the suit and remanded for trial before a statutoiy three-judge court as required by the Voting Rights Act. In the case at bar, the Property Owners, in challenging assessments that have already been imposed, are seeking to recover the assessments that have been paid and to enjoin collection of the assessments in the future. Closer to the mark than Pendleton v. Heard is Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 293 F.2d 337 (5th Cir.1961), in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act, of a suit in which "[pjlaintiffs ... seek an injunction to restrain the city from carrying forward its plan to install sewers and make the consequent assessments and service charges.” Id. at 338. See also Burris v. City of Little Rock, 941 F.2d 717 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 11 . In assessing the scope of the phrase
holding that suit was barred as a matter of comity even though the state of new york  indicates that it would waive the bar of the tax injunction act recognizing certificates of assessment as adequate evidence of tax liability holding that a new tax assessment formula enacted after the beginning of the period of assessment but applied to the entire tax year was a clear instance of a statute acting prospectively on facts or conditions in existence prior to its enactment holding that the tax injunction act barred review of a  1983 action to challenge an assessment to pay for sewer improvements holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act