DORA E. ROOKER AND WILLIAM V. ROOKER

v.

FIDELITY TRUST COMPANY AND FIDELITY TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF DORA E. ROOKER

Citator

Cited By

• House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1945)
  …d in denying the petition for habeas corpus on the grounds it assigned for its decision. This Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari in the present case under § 240 (a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 347 (a). Ferguson v. District of Columbia, 270 U. S. 633. Our authority under that section extends only to cases “in a circuit court of appeals, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.” Here the case was never “in” the court of appeals, for want of a certificate of probable…
• Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1998)
  …ends only to cases In a circuit court of appeals ....’” (2) “Here the case was never fin’ the court of appeals,” because of (3) “want of a certificate of probable cause.” 324 U. S., at 44.2 And it cited as authority Ferguson v. District of Columbia, 270 U. S. 633 (1926). The new rule that the Court today announces — that our opinions rendered without Ml briefing and argument (hitherto thought to be the strongest indication of certainty in the outcome) have a diminished stare decisis effect — may well turn…
• Hicks v. Dist. of Columbia, 383 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1966)
  …t based on 28 TJ. S. C. § 1254 (1) (1964 ed.) which we previously held did not permit review by writ of certiorari of cases where the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to allow an appeal. Ferguson v. District of Columbia, 270 U. S. 633. Our jurisdiction is founded on the power to issue a common-law writ of certiorari. House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42; 28 U. S. C. §1651 (a) (1964 ed.). Arguably, Rule 22 (2) has no application in cases involving extraordinary writs. Rule 31 which governs…

Authorities Cited

• Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923)
• Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 261 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1923)