3 F. App'x 819 - Bisbee v. McCarty’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Johnson v. De Grandy · Long v. Shorebank Development Corp. · Garry v. Geils
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims seeking review of state court judgments. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 ; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16 , 44 S.Ct. 149 . The losing party in a state court proceeding is generally “barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state court judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’ federal rights.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 , 114 S.Ct. 2647 , 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). Review of the state court judgment must proceed to the state’s highest court and then to the United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 . See Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir.1991). Rooker-Feldman bars not only cases seeking direct review of state court judgments; it also bars cases that are “inextricably intertwined” with a prior state court judgment. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303 . If adjudication of a claim in federal court would require the court to determine that a state court judgment was erroneously entered or was void, the claim is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state court judgment. See Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir.1997). “[T]he fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.