Changes

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]]
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,552

edits