John Berry, Jr. v. Michael Schmitt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by Rooker-Feldman because he “[did] not request relief” from the state decision itself but “[sought] relief that would allow him to engage in future protected speech”
• holding that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by Rooker-Feldman because he “[did] not request relief” from the state decision itself but “[sought] relief that would allow him to engage in future protected speech”
• holding Rooker-Feldman inapplicable to a request for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future enforcement of a bar association’s warning letter
• noting that“[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars lower federal courts from conducting appellate review of final state-court judgments because 28 U.S.C. § 1257 vests sole jurisdiction to review such claims in the Supreme Court”
• providing that, where a state court decision “on the merits” of an issue is the ‘source of the injury’ the plaintiff alleges, Rooker-Feldman bars the claim, even if the state court decision is not a formal judgment or order
• “warning letter implied a threat of future enforcement that elevated the injury from subjective chill to actual injury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).