Rooker-Feldman doctrine (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Rooker-Feldman doctrine in California

7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldmangreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2024
2 sentences

2023That decision is also final. 4 “ ‘[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1187, fn. 7 ; see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 ; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 .) 6.

2023That decision is also final. 4 “ ‘[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1187, fn. 7 ; see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 ; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 .) 6.

24
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.green
scotus · 1924 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2024
2 sentences

2023That decision is also final. 4 “ ‘[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1187, fn. 7 ; see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 ; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 .) 6.

2023That decision is also final. 4 “ ‘[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1187, fn. 7 ; see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 ; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 .) 6.

14
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.green
scotus · 2005 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2024
2 sentences

2024Corp. (2005) 544 U.S. 280, 284 .) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that determination, but concluded the dismissal should have been without prejudice.

2013Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)." In reaching his decision, Judge Battaglia found after granting a request for judicial notice that the first amended cross-complaint brought by ACIC against the Villas and Acclaim in the Heller action "was properly served [and] resulted in a default judgment against [cross-defendants] Villa and Acclaim for failure to respond to the cross- complaint." 5 C.

12
Thompson v. Ioanegreen
calctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023That decision is also final. 4 “ ‘[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1187, fn. 7 ; see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 ; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 .) 6.

2023That decision is also final. 4 “ ‘[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1187, fn. 7 ; see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 ; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 .) 6.

11
Lance v. Dennisgreen
scotus · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017The same is true of all of the court records (i.e., complaints, judicial opinions, and judgments) discussed in the factual summary. 7 “[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” (Lance v. Dennis (2006) 546 U.S. 459, 463 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 , 126 S.Ct. 1198 ] (per curiam), citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 [ 68 L.Ed. 362 , 44 S.Ct. 149 ], and D.

2017The same is true of all of the court records (i.e., complaints, judicial opinions, and judgments) discussed in the factual summary. 7 “[U]nder what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” (Lance v. Dennis (2006) 546 U.S. 459, 463 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 , 126 S.Ct. 1198 ] (per curiam), citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 [ 68 L.Ed. 362 , 44 S.Ct. 149 ], and D.

11
cluster 779501green
ca9 · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008(Lynch, supra, 307 F.3d at p. 805, citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 [ 68 L.Ed. 362 , 44 S.Ct. 149 ] and D.

2008(Lynch, supra, 307 F.3d at p. 805, citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413 [ 68 L.Ed. 362 , 44 S.Ct. 149 ] and D.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of California green
ca9 · 1994
1 sentence

2010Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462, 482 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 206 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 ] (Rooker-Feldman doctrine) as well as Worldwide Church of God v. McNair (9th Cir. 1986) 805 F.2d 888 , 891 and Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court (9th Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 218 , 221 in support of its conclusion that a federal court lacks authority to review a final state court judicial decision even when the challenge potentially involves federal constitutional issues and when a “federal claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the merits of the state-court decision.” The court assessed that the claims made

12010–2010
Worldwide Church Of God v. Leona Mcnair green
ca9 · 1986
1 sentence

2010Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462, 482 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 206 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 ] (Rooker-Feldman doctrine) as well as Worldwide Church of God v. McNair (9th Cir. 1986) 805 F.2d 888 , 891 and Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court (9th Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 218 , 221 in support of its conclusion that a federal court lacks authority to review a final state court judicial decision even when the challenge potentially involves federal constitutional issues and when a “federal claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the merits of the state-court decision.” The court assessed that the claims made

12010–2010

Where else courts name it

IL 9 (2011–2020) CA 7 (2008–2024) TX 4 (1999–2025) DE 3 (2000–2005) MI 3 (2003–2020) WI 2 (2004–2018) KS 2 (1998–2013) MD 2 (2003–2016) VT 2 (2003–2023) PA 2 (2019–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check