Marran’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably 363 F. Supp. 2d 771 - Gremo v. Karlin (2005), 430 F. Supp. 2d 830 - Cassens v. Cassens (2006)
8 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
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Younger v. Harris · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine arises from . 28 U.S.C. § 1257 which states in relevant part that “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.” Since Congress has never conferred a similar power of review of the United States District Courts, the Supreme Court has inferred that Congress did not intend to empower District Courts to review state court decisions.... [T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits District Courts from adjudicating actions in which the relief requested requires determining whether the state court’s decision is wrong or voiding the state court’s ruling. Although § 1257 refers to orders and decrees of the highest state court, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine has been applied to final decisions of lower state courts. Thus, a claim is barred by Rooker-Feld-man under two circumstances; first, if the federal claim was actually litigated in state court prior to the filing of the federal action or, second, if the federal claim is inextricably intertwined with the state adjudication, meaning that federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong. In either case, Rooker-Feldman bars a litigant’s federal claims and divests the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction over those claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Librett’s claims against Marran present the most straightforward application of Rooker-Feldman. Librett seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and "loss of earnings during minority.” All of these claims are based on the alleged abuse of R[ ]. In order for Librett to succeed on these claims, the District Court would have to find that the Court of Common Pleas erred in deciding that the allegations of abuse were unfounded. As such, the claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court adjudication and the District Court was correct in finding it lacked jurisdiction over these claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mikhail v. Kahn“The Supreme Court has never explicitly decided whether Younger abstention covers actions for damages as well as equitable relief. ... [Other Supreme Court] cases seem to indicate that abstention under Younger principles is not proper when damages are sought.” Marran, 376 F.3d at 154 (not deciding the issue); accord Kirsehner, 225 F.3d at 238. But see Howard v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 398 Fed.Appx. 807, 809 (3d Cir.2010) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mikhail v. Kahn
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.