In Re Audre, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Pavelich v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP (In Re Pavelich) (1999), Gertsch v. Johnson & Johnson, Finance Corp. (In Re Gertsch) (1999)
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1441A · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Pepper v. Litton · Heiser v. Woodruff · Kalb v. Feuerstein
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Ninth Circuit law is clear that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to judgments from any state court, regardless of whether the judgment is on appeal. [Citations omitted]. The Ninth Circuit specifically stated in Worldwide Church that 'we agree with the Second and Fifth Circuits that the Feldman doctrine should apply to state judgments even though state court appeals are not final.' [Citation omitted].... If the Rooker-Feldman doctrine solely barred federal review of judgments which had been fully appealed through the state court system, it would foster a rivalry between federal and state courts by creating incentives for disappointed state court participants to forum-shop and choose the federal courts instead of appealing their cases to the states' appellate courts. The [Ninth Circuit cases] are applicable to bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit despite the peculiarity of California law which denies issue preclusion effect to a California state court judgment which is pending on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.