Campbell v. City of Spencer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Rooker-Feldman barred a claim making a “di- rect attack on the state court’s judgment” but not another claim that the plaintiff “could raise … even if there had been no state-court pro- ceedings”
• holding that although “the complaint speaks in terms of actions by the defendants . . . the deprivation of property that was allegedly without just compensation or due process was the deprivation ordered by the state court”
• stating that a federal claim is not precluded by the Rook-er-Feldman doctrine solely because the claim requests relief inconsistent with a state-court judgment
• holding Rooker-Feldman applied where plaintiff alleged “Defendants sought and obtained an excessive fine” in state court (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that Rooker-Feldman bars claims “complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments” and “that the state court wrongfully entered its judgment.”
• holding Rooker Feldman barred Fifth Amendment 15 And, in fact, in Michael H., the Court upheld the presumption at issue, concluding there was no “historical tradition” or fundamental right implicated. 491 U.S. at 124. 20 due process claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).