Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Maryland, Inc. v. Weiner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “[The plaintiff’s] preemption claim would require the district court to decide whether ERISA preempted the [defendant's] tort claims. The district court would not merely decide the general issue of whether ERISA preempts all state tort claims. Rather, the district court would have to determine whether ERISA preempts the tort claims in this case by determining whether ERISA govem's the [defendant’s] insurance plans.... Thus, the district court would necessarily review these essential components of the ... trial court's judgment. Such review exemplifies the zone of appellate review from which federal district courts are forbidden.... Both the Supreme Court and this court have dismissed injunctive relief claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morrow v. Torrance Bank (In Re Morrow)

2. “Rooker-Feldman bar applies to BCBS-Maryland's request for injunctive relief in addition to its request for declaratory relief.”). He also appears to argue that some of the defendants’ actions — specifically, the State of Wisconsin and its Office of Judicial Education that promulgated the Municipal Judge Benchbook (which incorporates the allegedly unlawful practices) — were too remote from the state court judgment to thwart review under Rooker-Feldman. See Appellant’s Br. at 34-35. However, the district court dismissed the claims against these defendants. See R.50 (”

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