Ballinger v. Culotta’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.3d 546 · 2003
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 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. · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc · Johnson v. De Grandy · Bechtold v. City of Rosemount
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss, applying the same standards as were employed by the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“District courts may not review state court decisions, “even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional,” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 [, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 ], because “[fjederal jurisdiction to review most state court judgments is vested exclusively in the United States Supreme Court,” Lemonds, 222 F.3d at 492 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1257 ; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 [, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 ]). A party who was unsuccessful in state court thus “is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 , 1005—1006[, 114 S.Ct. 2647 , 129 L.Ed.2d 775 ] (1994) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 [, 103 S.Ct. 1303 )]; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416 [, 44 S.Ct. 149 ]. This jurisdictional bar extends not only to “straightforward appeals but also [to] more indirect attempts by federal plaintiffs to undermine state court decisions.” Lemonds, 222 F.3d at 492. Federal district courts thus may not “exercis[e] jurisdiction over general constitutional claims that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with specific claims already adjudicated in state court.” Id. at 492-93.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A claim brought in federal court is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment `if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issue before it.'”
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.