Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Williams, C.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that plaintiffs who do not seek “alteration of a state court’s judgment” are not barred from federal court by No. 21-3373 37 Rooker-Feldman
• recognizing that plaintiffs who do not seek “alteration of a state court’s judgment” are not barred from federal court by No. 21-3373 37 Rooker-Feldman
• holding that “[b]ecause the proceedings with respect to the [plaintiffs’] two eldest children are over, the state courts’ decisions are not subject to review anywhere,” so the claims were not barred by Rooker–Feldman
• noting that state-initiated \child-welfare and child-custody proceedings\ fall within Younger abstention because it is a \civil litigation brought by the state to vindicate its policies\
• deprecating arguments that all matters intertwined with state cases are outside federal jurisdiction
• abstaining from “the sort of arguments the Milchteins seek to present”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).