Schmitt Cbc v. Schmitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... [i]f a federal plaintiff claims injury at the hands of a state court, due to its decision in a civil case, federal district courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case; and the only appeal is to the [United States] Supreme Court after a final judgment by the highest state court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 313 F. Supp. 2d 782 - Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Catuara · 344 F. Supp. 2d 1148 - Bender v. Radosevich

2. “Mr. Schmitt also argues that a rarely invoked “void ab initio” exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here. According to Mr. Schmitt, the faulty service of process meant that the state courts never had jurisdiction over him. Federal courts exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction have occasionally reviewed state court judgments where the state court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re James, 940 F.2d 46, 52 (3d Cir.1991). But see In re Ferren, 203 F.3d 559, 560 (8th Cir.2000) (declining to create exception). We have acknowledged the Third Circuit’s exception, but we have not endorsed it. 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522 , 528 n. 6 (7th Cir.2000). While a void ab initio Rooker-Feldman exception might be appropriate in some bankruptcy cases (apparently the only situation in which it has been applied) in order to protect the dominant federal role in that specialized area of the law, it has no place here. As we have said, the Illinois state courts were competent to determine their own jurisdictional boundaries, so there is no need for the federal courts to intervene. If a state court had violated constitutional jurisdictional limits, Mr. Schmitt could have brought that up with the Supreme Court after exhausting his state court remedies. In sum, Mr. Schmitt has brought the precise sort of claim Rooker-Feldman eliminates....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haas v. Wisconsin