Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

340 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ned L. Siegel v. Lepore
  234 F.3d 1163· 11th Cir.· 2000-12-06 ·cited 352×
  Republican presidential candidates and Florida voters sought a preliminary injunction to halt manual recounts of ballots in four Florida counties following the November 2000 election, alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the First Amendment. The
• Rebekka Anne Behr v. Campbell
  8 F.4th 1206· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-12 ·cited 106×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a narrow jurisdictional rule that applies only when a party seeks to appeal a state court judgment in federal district court; it does not bar claims seeking damages for constitutional violations that occurred during state proceedings, even if relate
• Anderson v. City of Atlanta
  576 U.S. 155· 11th Cir.· 2026-04-15 ·cited 71×
  Section 16-28.019(7) of Atlanta's 1982 sign code, which restricts off-site advertising signs based on location rather than message content, is content-neutral under the First Amendment and does not trigger strict scrutiny. Multimedia lacks standing to mount a facial challenge to
• Wood v. Orange Cnty. & Kenneth Kienth
  715 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 56×
  The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' suit alleging due process violations regarding state-imposed liens, as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar claims a plaintiff had no reasonable opportunity to raise in state court.
• Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley
  885 So. 2d 980· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-11-03 ·cited 49×
  Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former husband and attorney, appealed post-judgment dissolution orders requiring payment of attorney's fees and tuition reimbursements. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders and, granting the former wife's motion for sanctions, prohibit
• Brown v. Dixie Herlong Chastain
  416 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 49×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to hear claims alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by state judicial officers. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude this jurisdicti
• In re The Justices OF the Supreme Court OF Puerto RICO
  695 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico are entitled to a writ of mandamus to dismiss claims against them regarding membership and dues statutes, as they act as neutral adjudicators and no case or controversy exists. However, the Puerto Rico Bar Assoc
• Efron v. Madeleine Candelario
  110 F.4th 1229· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-02 ·cited 35×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments, and claims that are inextricably intertwined with such judgments are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  195 F.3d 1225· 11th Cir.· 1999-11-15 ·cited 34×
  Agripost sought federal relief for a Fifth Amendment taking claim after Miami-Dade County revoked its unusual use zoning permit for a waste disposal facility, alleging the revocation rendered its property worthless without just compensation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dist
• Nishan Paul and Irma Feder v. Dade Cnty.
  419 F.2d 10· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-26 ·cited 32×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider constitutional issues already litigated and determined by a state court, even if certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• Lynk v. LaPORTE Superior Court NO. 2
  789 F.2d 554· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The district court erred in dismissing the federal civil rights suit under the Younger doctrine because there were no pending state court proceedings in which the plaintiff could vindicate his rights.
• Francisco Enters., Inc. v. Kirby
  482 F.2d 481· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that res judicata principles precluded the federal district court from entertaining the appellant's complaint, as the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is considered a state court of limited jurisdiction.
• In the Matter of: Meyerland Co. v. Meyerland Co.
  960 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the amended 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B) permits removal by the Corporation even in unusual circumstances where it is substituted as a party.
• Al-Hakim Allah v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  871 F.2d 887· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's opening brief could be construed as a timely notice of appeal because the district court failed to enter a separate judgment, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's dismissal of the appellant'
• Tang v. App. Div. OF the NEW York Supreme Court
  487 F.2d 138· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 26×
• Worldwide Church OF GOD v. McNAIR
  805 F.2d 888· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 24×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court's judgment, requiring review of that decision.
• Ellentuck v. Klein
  570 F.2d 414· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-04 ·cited 24×
  Plaintiffs' claims challenging a building permit, variance, and state court decisions on federal civil rights grounds were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because the New York Court of Appeals, applying the Kovarsky doctrine, had jurisdiction under CPLR § 103(c) to
• Liedel v. The Juv. Court OF Madison Cnty.
  891 F.2d 1542· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 21×
  The federal district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as it sought to review final state court judgments and enjoin ongoing state proceedings.
• Selwyn A. Robinson v. Ariyoshi
  753 F.2d 1468· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 20×
  A state cannot divest vested property rights through a judicial decision without just compensation, even if the decision changes established law.
• Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. FOR the State of Fla.
  679 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-08 ·cited 18×
  Carl Robert Alvarez, convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, appealed a district court dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging Florida's denial of his petition for postconviction DNA testing. The Eleventh Circuit affir
• In re Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union # 107. Appeal of Ronald & Frances Gajkowski
  888 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal was moot because a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision reversed the prior judgment, rendering the appellate court unable to grant effective relief.
• Brinkmann v. Johnston
  793 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claims against the state judge and his ex-wife and her attorney were frivolous and properly dismissed.
• Lancellotti v. Honorable Thomas F. FAY
  909 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a subjective good faith standard to determine Rule 11 sanctions, and that an objective standard of reasonable inquiry must be applied.
• MacKAY v. Pfeil
  827 F.2d 540· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 14×
  Federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments, even if the review is sought via diversity jurisdiction and claims of error in the state court's proceedings.
• ROY v. Jones
  484 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the case barred by res judicata, a ground different from the district court's abstention reasoning.
• Reynolds v. State OF Ga.
  640 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 13×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court judgment, even if the judgment allegedly violates constitutional rights, as such review constitutes impermissible appellate jurisdiction.
• Figueroa v. Merscorp, Inc.
  766 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2011-01-31 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because they are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
• Bosdorf v. Beach
  79 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 1999-11-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review the state court's personal jurisdiction ruling and that abstention under Colorado River was appropriate due to parallel state proceedings.
• Buckley v. Ill. Jud. Inquiry Bd.
  997 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 12×
  Illinois Supreme Court Rule 67(B)(1)(c), which broadly restricts speech by judicial candidates, violates the U.S. Constitution.
• In re SUN Valley Foods Co. v. Detroit Marine Terminals, Inc.
  801 F.2d 186· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final state court judgments, but that an order lifting an automatic stay in bankruptcy is a final order for appeal purposes. The court affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims and reversed the denial of appeal
• Anderson v. The State OF Colo. & the Judges of the First Jud. Dist.
  793 F.2d 262· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 12×
  Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final state court judgments, even when framed as a civil rights claim.
• Ni Pilkinton v. Pilkinton
  389 F.2d 32· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-09 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court proceedings, even if constitutional rights are alleged to have been violated.
• Zisser v. Florida Bar
  747 F. Supp. 2d 1303· M.D. Fla.· 2010-03-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Zisser's as-applied due process challenge to the Florida Bar's recertification denial was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and her facial challenges failed for lack of a cognizable property or liberty interest.
• Centifanti v. NIX
  865 F.2d 1422· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint as a general constitutional challenge to state bar rules, not an improper review of a state court decision. The court also reversed the denial of the motion to amend the complaint.
• Sitton v. United States
  413 F.2d 1386· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-30 ·cited 11×
  The court held that federal law does not override Texas coverture law protecting Mrs. Sitton from personal liability on the note, and that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review the state court's dismissal of the third-party complaint.
• NLG, LLC v. Horizon Hospitality Grp., LLC
  10 F.4th 1244· 11th Cir.· 2021-09-01 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appeal, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply and the appeal was equitably moot due to substantial consummation of the reorganization plan and failure to obtain a stay.
• Moreton Rolleston, Jr. v. Judge Frank M. Eldridge
  848 F.2d 163· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a judge is protected by judicial immunity for actions taken in a judicial capacity, even if procedural errors occurred, and that federal courts should not review state court decisions.
• Stern v. Honorable Robert N.C. NIX, Jr.
  840 F.2d 208· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 10×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the appellant was impermissibly seeking to review and reverse a final judgment of a state court in a judicial proceeding.
• Howell v. State BAR OF Tex.
  710 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 10×
• Rohe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  988 F.3d 1256· 11th Cir.· 2021-02-18 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the All Writs Act cannot be invoked without an underlying proceeding over which the court has jurisdiction.
• Keene Corp. v. Judge J.E. Cass
  908 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court orders when the federal claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court's rulings, and that attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 cannot be awarded when a case is dismissed for lack
• Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction and that the Engle Phase I findings can only have issue preclusive effect, not claim preclusive effect, because they did not establish liability.
• Gash Assocs. v. Vill. OF Rosemont
  995 F.2d 726· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was impermissibly seeking to overturn a state court judgment through a federal collateral attack, which is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Elks Nat'l Found. v. Weber
  942 F.2d 1480· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-29 ·cited 8×
  Federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions, even if constitutional claims are alleged, and such claims are barred by res judicata if the issues were considered and decided by the state courts.
• United States Steel Corp. Plan FOR Emp. Ins. Benefits v. Musisko
  885 F.2d 1170· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The district court's injunction and declaratory judgment are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because ERISA does not expressly authorize federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings.
• Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Md., Inc. v. Weiner
  868 F.2d 1550· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because BCBS-Maryland's claims required reviewing the state court's judgment, and thus the denial of the preliminary injunction and abstention are affirmed, but the case is remanded to dismiss
• Corpus Christi Taxpayer's Ass'n v. City OF Corpus Christi
  858 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction and res judicata, and that the City is entitled to sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
• Reed v. Terrell
  759 F.2d 472· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The federal district court did not err in dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction, as it cannot review state court judgments.
• Dade Cnty. Classroom Teachers' Ass'n, Inc. v. Nathan
  413 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 8×
  The federal court affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' suit, finding that the federal questions raised had already been litigated and decided by the Florida Supreme Court.