7 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 48 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Garry v. Geils.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Garry v. Geils Anchor | green | “the fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from that judgment.” | 13 |
| 2 | Centres, Inc. And Centres Ventures, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, Town of Brookfield Board of Supervisors, Keith Henderson | green | “if the injury alleged resulted from the state court judgment itself, the rooker-feldman doctrine dictates that the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, even if the state court judgment was erroneous or unconstitutional.” | 10 |
| 3 | Garry v. Geils | green | “whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from that judgment.” | 6 |
| 4 | Garry v. Geils | green | “in order to determine the applicability of the rooker-feldman doctrine, the fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from that judgment.” | 6 |
| 5 | Raymond Homola v. Paul McNamara | green | “a decision by a state court, however erroneous, is not itself a violation of the constitution actionable in federal court.” | 5 |
| 6 | Centres, Inc. And Centres Ventures, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, Town of Brookfield Board of Supervisors, Keith Henderson | green | “a federal claim alleging a prior injury that a state court failed to remedy.” | 5 |
| 7 | Centres, Inc. And Centres Ventures, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, Town of Brookfield Board of Supervisors, Keith Henderson | green | “by contrast, if the alleged injury is distinct from the state court judgment and not inextricably intertwined with it, the rooker-feldman doctrine does not apply, although the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion may be applicable.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.