green
Positive treatment
Hot · 52 in 5y
44.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laura Blevins-Clark v. Beacon Communities, LLC, et al.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Union Planters Bank v. L & J Dev.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kevin William Cassaday v. State of Michigan
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 940, n. 18 (6th Cir. 2002); Scott v. Bradford, No. 13-12781, 2014 WL 6675354 , at *4 (E.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mador v. Armscor Precision International
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Union Planters Bank v. L & J Dev.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
A Vision for You, LLC v. The City of Memphis
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dobronski v. 1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC
(2×)
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Union Planters Bank v. L & J Development Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 378, 384 (6th Cir. 1997)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Michigan, State of
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgewill v. CMH Homes, Inc.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936-37 (6th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vayko v. Oakland County Sheriff's Department
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002); and (2) resting on the “clearly baseless” “delusional scenario,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-28 , that Plaintiff’s case somehow “illustrated a conflict of interest between [Judge Warren] and law enforcement” that undercut “the interest of justice and common law.” ECF No. 1, PageID.7.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cofer v. Financial Education Services
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Union Planters Bank v. L & J Development Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 378, 384 (6th Cir. 1997)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Saginaw County Treasurer
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); accord Bey v. Wayne Cnty.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Klawiter v. Michigan, State of
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Duneske v. Priess
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dates v. HBSC
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Muhammad v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott v. Bank of America N.A.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (punctuation modified).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henley v. Jordan
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002); Tropf v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins., Co., 289 F.3d 929, 943 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that federal courts must have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction in order to issue a writ under § 1651).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Viola v. Ohio Attorney General
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Madden v. Grate
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Violett v. Dowden
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Todd Webster v. Gregory Spears
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marla Montell v. Diversified Clinical Services
(2×)
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Montell v. Diversified Clinical Services Inc.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sharon Hall v. Lynne Callahan
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. Callahan
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir.1998))." ’ However, the District Court nonetheless dismissed the claim because it found that the Statute was constitutional as a matter of law, adopting the reasoning of Grundstein v. Ohio. 2006 WL 3499990 at *3-7.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sharon Hall v. Lynne Callahan
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bench Billboard Co. v. City of Cincinnati
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Figueroa v. Merscorp, Inc.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937-38 (6th Cir.2002) (affirming dismissal of a RICO action under Rooker-Feldman where plaintiffs were alleging various frauds in connection with a state-court foreclosure judgment that allegedly allowed banks to "wrongfully” take their home); Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F.Supp.2d 539, 543 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding that subject-matter jurisdiction did not exist under Rooker-Feldman to adjudicate plaintiffs’ RICO and § 1983 claims because plaintiffs asked the court "to review the state court's judgment of foreclosure and eviction, by seeking damages for the loss of their prop…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. CHESTER, WILLCOX & SAXBE
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 941 (6th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Chester, Willcox & Saxbe
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 941 (6th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. Penn Line Services, Inc.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir.2002) (affirming district court sanctions penalty against plaintiffs and their attorney jointly and severally for, inter alia, presenting factual allegations before the court that “patently lacked evidentiary support”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Encore Credit Corp.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937-38 (6th Cir.2002); Kafele v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, LPA, 161 Fed.Appx. 487, 489-90 (citing Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir.1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
B & H Med v. ABP Admin Inc
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir. 2002). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
B & H Medical, L.L.C. v. ABP Administration, Inc.
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir.2002). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Loriz v. Connaughton
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir.2002)(citing Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir.1998)) The Rooker-Feldman doctrine has very limited application.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hood v. Keller
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir.2002)); see also Edwards v. Il.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Katz v. Rabkin
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 939 (6th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilbert v. National Employee Benefit Companies, Inc.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 1(c)(2)(A); Tropf, 289 F.3d at 939.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gabhart v. Cocke County
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir.2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted); and (2) “the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal court jurisdiction where that claim is a specific grievance that the law was invalidly — even unconstitutionally — applied in the plaintiffs particular case.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blachy v. Butcher
In this Circuit, “the test for imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is whether the individual’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.” See Tropf, 289 F.3d at 939 (quotation omitted); see also Pittman v. Michigan Corrections Organization, 123 Fed.Appx. 637, 641 (6th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pittman v. Michigan Corrections Organization
(2×)
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Oakland County Circuit Court
Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir.2002)(quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 ; and citing Anderson v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 492 (6th Cir.2001)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Kelli O’MALLEY, Defendant - Appellant
v.
Kelli O’MALLEY, Defendant - Appellant
00-5416.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 8, 2002.
Siler, Gilman, Donald.
Published
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by the appellee,
It is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be, and it hereby is, GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the parties file letter briefs in support of their respective positions within fourteen days from the date of this order.