Green v. Mattingly’s Empirical Analysis
585 F.3d 97 · 2009
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Harold v. Steel (2014), V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad (2010)
6 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
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.
“First, the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court. Second, the plaintiff must “complain!] of injuries caused by [a] state-court judgment!.]” Third, the plaintiff must “invite district court review and rejection of [that] judgment! ].” Fourth, the state-court judgment must have been “rendered before the district court proceedings commenced” — i.e., Rooker-Feldman has no application to federal-court suits proceeding in parallel with ongoing state-court litigation.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284 , 125 S.Ct. 1517 ). . Although the Second Circuit states the rule in the conjunctive (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar a district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal claim where the federal claim complains of injuries caused by an interlocutory state-court order that was effectively reversed by a superseding state-court order, where the federal claim was brought after the state-court proceeding was dismissed, and where any appeal of the interlocutory order would have been moot. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is not a “state-court loser,” and the federal claim does not “invite district court review and rejection” of the interlocutory state-court order.”
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.