Glory Truong v. Bank of America, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, after Exxon Mobil, the phrase “ ‘in extricably intertwined’ does not enlarge the core holding of Rooker or Feldman ”
• concluding that the plaintiff’s claims that her mortgage lenders (1) misled the state court into thinking that evidence was authentic and (2
• concluding that the district court had jurisdiction to hear Truong’s claims, because they were “independent claims” for Rooker-Feldman purposes, as they had not yet been adjudicated by a state court
• noting that one of the “hallmark[s] of the Rooker-Feldman inquiry is the source of the federal plaintiff’s alleged injury” (citing Exxon, 544 U.S. at 284)
• noting that Rooker-Feldman “does not prohibit a district court from reviewing non-state court decisions”
• reviewing de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).