Powell v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 464 · 1996
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Nicholson v. Shafe (2009), Glassroth v. Moore (2003)
14 federal appellate ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The] Rooker-Feldman [doctrine] bars lower federal court jurisdiction where four criteria are met: (1) the party in federal court is the same as the party in state court; (2) the prior state court ruling was a final or conclusive judgment on the merits; (3) the party seeking relief in federal court had a reasonable opportunity to raise its federal claims in the state court proceeding; and (4) the issue before the federal court was either adjudicated by the state court or was inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this case, the state trial court, in accordance with Georgia principles of equitable division, awarded $480.00 of Mr. Powell’s naval retirement pay, or forty percent of it, to Mrs. Powell. The court made that award pursuant to authorization contained in the FSPA. Mr. Powell’s present federal claim that the FSPA is unconstitutional as applied to him is “inextricably intertwined” with the issue of whether the state court could award Mrs. Powell part of his naval retirement pay. If a federal district court were now to hold in Mr. Powell’s favor on his federal claim, that holding would “effectively nullify” the state court’s judgment that Mrs. Powell is to receive a portion of his naval retirement pay. The result would be that the state court’s judgment, insofar as it pertains to money to be received by Mrs. Powell, would be collaterally reviewed and reversed in federal court, which is precisely what the Rooker-Feldman doctrine exists to prevent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no 'reasonable opportunity to raise his federal claim in state proceedings.”
2 later decisions 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.