Skip to main content
Seventh Circuit· 4/22/1996

Garry v. Geils

Citations

  • 82 F.3d 1362

How courts have described this case

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

  • observing that the takings injury alleged was only complete when state court ac- tually condemned the property
  • explaining the critical difference between failing to obtain relief from the state court and suffering an injury from the state court judgment
  • finding plaintiffs’ claim that defendants brought a state condemnation action against them due to political retaliation barred by Rooker-Feldman, as “the injury alleged was only complete when the state court actually condemned the property”
  • finding plaintiffs’ claim that defendants brought a state condemnation action against them due to political retaliation barred by Rooker-Feldman, as “the injury alleged was only complete when the state court actually condemned the property”
  • applying 2 Moreover, “[i]f Rooker–Feldman applies, [federal courts] lack jurisdiction to consider” whether res judicata applies. 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 527 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Geils, 82 F.3d at 1365 (7th Cir. 1996
  • “Where Rooker-Feldman applies, lower federal courts have no power to address other affirmative defenses, including res judicata.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Coffey, Easterbrook, Flaum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

98 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Garry v. Geils

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.