Sasson Sasson v. F Md’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Grogan v. Garner · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Pepper v. Litton · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine has little or no application to bankruptcy proceedings that invoke the substantive rights under the Bankruptcy Code or that, by their nature, could arise only in the context of a federal bankruptcy case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In apparent contradiction to Rooker-Feldman theory, bankruptcy courts are empowered to avoid state judgments, see, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 , 547,-548, 549; to modify them, see, e.g., 11. U.S.C. §§ 1129, 1325; and to discharge them, see, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 727 , 1141, 1328.... Thus, final judgments in state courts are not necessarily preclusive in United States bankruptcy courts. Indeed, the rule has long stood that a state court judgment entered in a case that falls within the federal court’s exclusive jurisdiction is subject to collateral attack in the federal courts. 19”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not seeking to have the bankruptcy court review the merits of the state court judgment; rather, he is attempting to prevent the bankruptcy court from, giving effect to the state court judgment. Likewise, the creditor is not seeking modification of the state court judgment; it is attempting to save the judgment from bankruptcy discharge. In entering judgment, the bankruptcy court was exercising its exclusive statutory power to determine whether a debt is dischargeable in a bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 (a)(6), 727(a)(2). Actions seeking a determination of non-dischargeability are core bankruptcy proceedings, see 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(I), and are not subject to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to enter the money judgment in this case.”
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.