Kenman Engineering v. City of Union

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 Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred a suit by plaintiffs seeking monetary relief that would restore them to the position they were in before the state-court judgments
• holding that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine “does not distinguish between ‘temporary’ and ‘final’ orders.”
• stating that “[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional prohibition” and affirming the district court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
• declining to incorporate a “full-and-fair-opportunity-to-litigate inquiry into the Rooker-Feldman analysis” because it “tends to blur the distinction between res judicata and Rook-er-Feldman ”
• applying Rooker-Feldman to non-parties who were in privity with party that lost in state court
• rejecting the “contention that the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim in the prior state-court proceeding bars application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).