green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
27.1 score
“he feldman distinction meant that a general constitutional attack that is nonetheless 'inextricably intertwined' with a state court judgment cannot be properly heard in federal court.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Avoyelles Pblsh Co v. Ieyoub
he feldman distinction meant that a general constitutional attack that is nonetheless 'inextricably intertwined' with a state court judgment cannot be properly heard in federal court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hersy Jones, Jr. v. Louisiana State Supreme Court
ederal jurisdiction does not lie for claims that were not presented first to the state court in the disciplinary proceeding.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Macgowan v. Kelly Cox
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilbert v. Perry
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilbert v. Bartel
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. Electronic Data Systems
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994); Gen.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burditt v. Geneva Capital, LLC
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morey v. Rhode Island
The lack of jurisdiction is not altered by claims that the state judgment is unconstitutional, see Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 917 F.2d at 628 (“It is well-established that lower federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear appeals from state court decisions, even if the state judgment is challenged as unconstitutional.”), or that the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated in the state proceeding, see Mussle- *77 white v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 944, 947 (5th Cir.1994); Tidik v. Ritsema, 938 F.Supp. 416, 424 (E.D.Mich.1996)(holding that district court h…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCormick v. Dempster
See John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 576 (5th Cir.2000); Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordaan v. Hall
See Reed, 759 F.2d at 473 (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, 103 S.Ct. 1303 ); Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945-46 (5th Cir.1994), *789 ce rt. denied, 515 U.S. 1103 , 115 S.Ct. 2248 , 132 L.Ed.2d 256 (1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brainerd v. Sawyer
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994). * Pursuant to 5TH CIR.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. Genisis of Laconia
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“This is about substance, not about form.” Musslewhite, 32 F.3d at 947.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dupre v. University Health
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anzalone v. State of Louisiana
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Voinche v. CIA
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2248 (1995). "[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Odom
(2×)
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 947 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 2248 , 132 L.Ed.2d 256 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Slidell Auto Auction, Inc. And Rebecca Toblin Slocum v. American Bank & Trust Co. Of Baton Rouge, La., Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for American Bank & Trust Co. v. Joseph M. Slocum
(2×)
This is particularly true in a case where, as here, the receiver properly published notice and Appellants received actual notice of the receivership by the FDIC's motion for substitution and removal. 10 The majority opinion erects a false dichotomy between actions filed pre- and post-receivership when it states "[a] claimant with a law suit pending against the bank when the receiver is appointed is entitled to mailed notice of the administrative claims procedure before the rule of Mustang or Brady could apply." 32 F.3d at 942.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Slidell Auto Auction, Inc. v. American Bank & Trust Co.
(2×)
The majority opinion erects a false dichotomy between actions filed pre- and post-receivership when it states “[a] claimant with a law suit pending against the bank when the receiver is appointed is entitled to mailed notice of the administrative claims procedure before the rule of Mustang or Brady could apply.” 32 F.3d at 942.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ALFREDO C. BACANI, M.D v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, (DVA); TOGO WEST, Secretary, DVA
Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
M.D.C.G. v. United States
See Musselwhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942 , 945 (5th Cir. 1994); Counts v. Guevara, 328 F.3d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Javier Flores v. Mike Pompeo
See Musselwhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942 , 945 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Riley v. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n
See Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942 , 946 n. 15 (5th Cir.1994) (noting that federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims that could have been, but were not raised in state court).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hicks v. Brysch
See Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1103 , 115 S.Ct. 2248 , 132 L.Ed.2d 256 (1995); and Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994). 73 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc.
See Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2248 , 132 L.Ed.2d 256 (1995) (de novo review of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (de novo review of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi
See Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2248 , 132 L.Ed.2d 256 (1995) (de novo review of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (de novo review of Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Estate of Underwood v. National Credit Union Administration
See Greater Slidell Auto Auction, Inc., 32 F.3d at 942 (citing Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 798-800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2711-12 , 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), and Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317-20 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 658-60 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)); diStefano, 839 F.Supp. at 118; Wilson, 827 F.Supp. at 123-24 ; Updike Bros., 814 F.Supp. at 1041 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ross v. Stephens
AFFIRMED. _____________________ 8 See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Constitutional questions arising in state proceedings are to be resolved by the state courts.”); see also Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942 , 947 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding as to allegations of retaliatory disciplinary proceedings by state bar, “our consideration of these contentions would require a collateral examination of the state court judgment.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Silver Slipper Casino Venture LLC v. Does
See, e.g., Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Manor v. Texas Supreme Court Justices
See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995); see also Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc. v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers International, L.P. (In Re Missouri Properties, Ltd.)
See also Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1103 , 115 S.Ct. 2248 , 132 L.Ed.2d 256 (1995) (where the Court stated the general rule of Feldman is “federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional”); Aaris *928 maa v. Maye, 889 F.Supp. 68, 69 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (where the court noted since plaintiff was clearly and solely seeking federal court interventio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Benton MUSSLEWHITE, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The STATE BAR OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-2762.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
July 19, 1994.
1
NOTE: THE COURT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS OPINION. SEE 32 F.3d 942