-
814 F.2d 683·
D.C. Cir.·
1987-03-17
·cited 2×
The District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and should have dismissed the action.
-
698 F.2d 800·
6th Cir.·
1982-11-02
·cited 2×
The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction in adoption matters, as these are traditionally within the purview of state courts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-16
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint without leave to amend, denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-11-12
The court held that it should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the domestic relations exception because the case is intertwined with ongoing state court child custody and divorce proceedings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-12
The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion to remand due to the domestic relations exception and denying the defendant's motions to vacate and stay.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-02
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it lacked federal question jurisdiction, was subject to abstention doctrines, and claims were barred by judicial and litigation immunities.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-14
The court held that while the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata do not apply, the plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and the only non-time-barred claim involves a private actor not subject to § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-30
The federal court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding it barred by Rooker-Feldman, Younger abstention, and the domestic relations exception.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-20
The court held that claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Rooker-Feldman, Younger abstention, and the domestic relations exception.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-19
The court held that the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order dismissing his amended complaint were overruled, and the magistrate judge's order was adopted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-04
The federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because it involves issues that are either reviewable state court judgments or fall under the domestic relations exception.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-07-01
The court held that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action concerning marital property due to parallel state proceedings and that Florida must enforce an Illinois judgment under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, even if it conflicts with F
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-05-02
The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding it barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and the domestic relations exception.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-12-19
The federal court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding it barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and the domestic relations exception.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-05
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-15
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and requiring the plaintiff to amend his complaint due to deficiencies in pleading and potential jurisdictional issues.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-09
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed due to the statute of limitations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-07
The federal court dismissed the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the domestic relations exception and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the claims involved state child custody matters and sought to review state court judgments.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-24
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-22
The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has stated plausible claims for fraudulent transfer under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-26
The court struck the plaintiff's initial filings and granted her three weeks to file an amended complaint that complies with court rules and federal procedure regarding minor's names, and addresses potential jurisdictional issues.
-
916 F. Supp. 1233·
M.D. Fla.·
1996-02-13
The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 is constitutional, not violating the Tenth Amendment or the Commerce Clause.
-
979 F.2d 627·
8th Cir.·
1992-11-09
The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a third-party beneficiary contract claim, and abstention was inappropriate as the claim was not substantially related to pending state proceedings.
-
929 F.2d 20·
1st Cir.·
1991-03-27
The court held that the petitioner was not 'in custody' when he filed his habeas corpus petition, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
-
883 F.2d 63·
10th Cir.·
1989-08-21
The court held that a breach of contract claim for child support, even if framed as a contract, falls within the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.
-
747 F.2d 320·
5th Cir.·
1984-11-30
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit for want of subject matter jurisdiction due to the domestic relations exception.
-
487 F.2d 914·
6th Cir.·
1973-11-29
The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as domestic relations matters fall under state law.