Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

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

• Haggerty v. Scott
  2025 WL 2829541· M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15 ·cited 7×
  The Court denied most of the plaintiff's motions, finding them premature, unsupported, or procedurally improper, and denied the motion to accept the fourth amended complaint due to shotgun pleading characteristics.
• Seminole Tribe OF Florida v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Revenue
  750 F.3d 1238· 11th Cir.· 2014-05-05 ·cited 7×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Counts I and II of the Tribe's complaint, which seek a declaratory judgment against Florida officials that the future imposition of certain fuel taxes violates the Constitution under the Indian Commerce Clause. These counts seek prospective rel
• Diaz v. Moore
  861 F. Supp. 1041· N.D. Fla.· 1994-08-24 ·cited 7×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the applied constitutional challenge and that the facial challenge and individual claims were barred by res judicata or judicial immunity.
• Leaf v. Supreme Court OF the State OF Wis.
  979 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 7×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments, but it does not bar claims brought by individuals who were not parties to the state proceedings.
• McWILLIAMS v. McWILLIAMS
  804 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 7×
  A federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as a court of that state would, barring a § 1983 claim based on issues that were or could have been litigated in the state proceeding.
• Cowart v. Duro
  2023 WL 5069482· M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint contained numerous deficiencies, including failure to state a claim, improper citation of statutes, and claims barred by immunity doctrines, requiring a second amended complaint.
• Rivera-Puig v. Hon. Gabriel Garcia-Rosario
  983 F.2d 311· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the closure provision of Rule 23(c) of the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment right of access to preliminary hearings, and that abstention doctrines do not apply.
• Valenti v. Mitchell
  962 F.2d 288· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the district court from hearing constitutional claims by parties who were not participants in the prior state supreme court proceedings, even if those proceedings addressed similar issues.
• United States v. Rural Elec. Convenience Coop. Co.
  922 F.2d 429· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief, as federal interests necessitate a federal forum for resolving disputes involving federal bailouts and loan guarantees.
• Scott v. Flowers
  910 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge holds that the plaintiff's section 1983 suit is barred under the rationale of Thomas v. Kadish because the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct functioned as a court and review was available, and the reprimand was a non-actionable expression of opinion.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• Am. Disposal Servs., Inc. v. O'Brien
  839 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the federal civil rights action based on abstention principles under Colorado River due to parallel state court proceedings.
• Brucker v. City of Doraville
  38 F.4th 876· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The City's financial reliance on fines and fees does not create an unconstitutional risk of bias in its municipal court judge, prosecutor, police, or code enforcement agents, as their independence and lack of direct financial incentive in individual case outcomes are sufficient.
• Lipford v. Carnival Corp.
  346 F. Supp. 2d 1276· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a stay of federal proceedings pending resolution of a related state court case is unwarranted if the requested stay is indefinite in scope.
• In re Zoernack
  289 B.R. 220· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-24 ·cited 4×
  A federal court cannot review a state court's judgment granting a charging lien, even if by consent, due to the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and Rooker-Feldman.
• Ritter v. Ross
  992 F.2d 750· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments, even when framed as civil rights claims, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran
  959 F.2d 634· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 4×
  A federal court should not interfere with ongoing state litigation by issuing an injunction, especially when the litigant has an adequate remedy through appeal after a final judgment.
• Blake v. Papadakos
  953 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 4×
  Federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review final adjudications of a state's highest court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Claughton v. Donner
  771 F. Supp. 1200· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, thus granting the motions to dismiss.
• Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto RICO
  917 F.2d 620· 1st Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 4×
  Compelled membership in the Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico is unconstitutional in its present form because it uses compulsory dues for ideological activities not germane to regulating the legal profession. However, the injunction is temporarily delayed to allow the Colegio to
• Arecibo Radio Corp. v. Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO
  825 F.2d 589· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 4×
  The federal court is barred by the preclusive effect of prior state court judgments from entertaining a suit seeking to overturn those judgments.
• Smiley v. State OF S.D.
  551 F.2d 774· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The district court correctly dismissed the action because federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the claims were also barred by res judicata.
• Atchley v. Greenhill
  517 F.2d 692· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, as it was an impermissible attempt to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a state court judgment.
• Hutcherson v. Lehtin
  485 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that res judicata bars a federal civil rights action raising the same constitutional issue previously decided by a state court.
• Louis Ender, Inc. v. Gen. Foods Corp.
  467 F.2d 327· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed summary judgment against Ender on its claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and constitutional claims, though on different reasoning for the latter.
• Schiavo v. Schiavo
  404 F.3d 1270· 11th Cir.· 2005-03-30 ·cited 3×
  The special concurrence argues that Public Law 109-3 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine by dictating how federal courts should exercise their judicial functions, prescribing a "rule of decision" for a specific case, and infringing upon the i
• Tindall v. Gibbons
  156 F. Supp. 2d 1292· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Count I would be stayed, Counts II and III were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Count IV was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Baggs v. City of S. Pasadena
  947 F. Supp. 1580· M.D. Fla.· 1996-11-25 ·cited 3×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on federal claims, dismissing the procedural and substantive due process and equal protection claims, and remanded the state law claims.
• Baker v. Alderman
  766 F. Supp. 1112· M.D. Fla.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 3×
  Summary judgment is granted to Defendants on all claims, as Plaintiff resigned by operation of law and the court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claim due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Leiphart v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pro se litigant cannot bring claims on behalf of a minor child, injunctive relief requires a filed complaint, and the Younger doctrine bars federal interference with ongoing state dependency proceedings.
• Dulaney v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  785 F. Supp. 2d 1343· S.D. Fla.· 2011-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the County and the Union, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Dulaney's discrimination claims under the ADA and FCRA.
• Stoddard v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs
  509 F. Supp. 2d 1117· N.D. Fla.· 2006-12-22 ·cited 2×
  Federal court must abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief from ongoing state bar admission proceedings under the Younger doctrine, and damages claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or qualified immunity, or fail to state a claim under the ADA.
• Kotz v. Florida
  33 F. Supp. 2d 1019· M.D. Fla.· 1998-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine, allowing state proceedings to continue.
• Ross v. Zavarella
  916 F.2d 898· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of an appealable order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or that the order could only be effectively challenged by immediate appeal.
• Howell v. The Supreme Court OF Tex.
  885 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and upheld the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.
• Gauthier v. Cont'l Diving Servs., Inc.
  831 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the federal action and that the jury's verdict annulling the seaman's settlement was supported by evidence of a broken promise of continued employment.
• Rhoades v. The Honorable Craig Penfold
  694 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction, did not err in refusing to abstain or apply res judicata, but did err in granting summary judgment and certifying a class action.
• Jack's Fruit Co. v. Growers Mktg. Serv., Inc.
  488 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-10 ·cited 2×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review final state court determinations of federal constitutional questions, and res judicata bars relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised in state court.
• Anderson v. Lecon Props., Inc.
  457 F.2d 929· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 2×
  Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review alleged errors in state court judgments, and the Minnesota Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction.
• Webster v. Fla. Supreme Court
  2024 WL 3963742· N.D. Fla.· 2025-02-11 ·cited 1×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review final state court decisions, even when framed as a section 1983 action.
• Johnson v. Eleftherio
  2022 WL 6575784· S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars claims seeking to relitigate state court judgments, but a breach of contract claim based on alleged contractual obligations arising from silence fails for failure to state a claim.
• The Ala. Creditors v. Dorand
  95 F.4th 1355· 11th Cir.· 2024-03-14 ·cited 1×
  An individual retirement account is part of a debtor's bankruptcy estate if the funds remain in the account when the bankruptcy petition is filed, even if a state court issued a turnover order, as long as the funds were not actually transferred before filing.
• Trevino v. Andrews
  2009 WL 804528· M.D. Fla.· 2023-12-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as his challenge to Florida's DNA testing statute was foreclosed by binding precedent.
• Jenkins v. The GeoGroup, Inc.
  2021 WL 2269824· S.D. Fla.· 2021-07-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and failed to properly allege jurisdiction, warranting dismissal.
• McClean v. Nero
  605 B.R. 242· M.D. Fla.· 2020-04-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant's attempted removal of the state foreclosure case to federal court was improper and lacked jurisdiction, warranting remand.
• Collins v. Erin Cap. Mgmt., LLC
  59 C.C.A. 499· S.D. Fla.· 2013-03-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and that common issues predominated, making class certification appropriate.
• Dandar v. Church of Scientology Flag Serv. Org., Inc.
  732 F. Supp. 2d 310· M.D. Fla.· 2013-02-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply because the plaintiff's claims allege independent constitutional violations, not just review of state court decisions. However, the court found that Younger abstention applies because there are ongoing state proceedin
• Major League Baseball v. Butterworth
  2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22021· N.D. Fla.· 2001-12-27 ·cited 1×
  The federal antitrust laws do not apply to the 'business of baseball,' including contraction, and this exemption extends to state antitrust laws.
• Pemberton v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
  66 F. Supp. 2d 1247· N.D. Fla.· 1999-10-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that forcing a pregnant woman to undergo a medically necessary caesarean section to save the fetus's life did not violate her constitutional rights, nor was it negligent, and that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court procedural decisions.
• In re Beiswenger Enters. Corp. v. Carletta
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1297· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the petitioner has the right to litigate whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, and therefore denied the claimants' motion for summary judgment.