Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Rooker–Feldman doctrine is a doctrine of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure that would eventually become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the later case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the earlier case of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.). [1]
The Third Circuit raised, sua sponte (on its own motion), the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, and concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the district court from proceeding, on the grounds that Exxon Mobil's claims had already been heard in state court—even though Exxon Mobil was not seeking to have the state court verdict ...
The court rejected Hale's argument, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that federal courts "should not sit in direct review of state court decisions," and the question became whether the Supreme Court's allowance of Hale's application's rejection counted as judicial proceedings, and whether he had a chance to litigate his case in ...
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).The doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them."
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate.
The "stripping doctrine" permits a state official who used his or her position to act illegally to be sued in his or her individual capacity. [citation needed] However, the government itself is still immune from being sued through respondeat superior. [citation needed] The courts have called this "stripping doctrine" a legal fiction.