Difference between revisions of "Rooker-Feldman doctrine"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over any action that "in essence, would be an attempt to obtain direct review of the [state cour...) |
(improved) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over any action that "in essence, would be an attempt to obtain direct review of the [state court's judicial] decision in the lower federal courts." ''[[ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish]]'', 490 U.S. 605, 622-23 (1989). | Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over any action that "in essence, would be an attempt to obtain direct review of the [state court's judicial] decision in the lower federal courts." ''[[ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish]]'', 490 U.S. 605, 622-23 (1989). | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has held Rooker-Feldman to be inapplicable where the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was not a party to the underlying state-court proceeding. See ''De Grandy'', supra, at 1006, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 129 L. Ed. 2d 775. | ||
[[category:law]] | [[category:law]] | ||
| + | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 20:17, November 27, 2007
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over any action that "in essence, would be an attempt to obtain direct review of the [state court's judicial] decision in the lower federal courts." ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 622-23 (1989).
The U.S. Supreme Court has held Rooker-Feldman to be inapplicable where the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was not a party to the underlying state-court proceeding. See De Grandy, supra, at 1006, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 129 L. Ed. 2d 775.