Kevin Harold v. Christopher Steel

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiff’s contention that false state- ments to court could be separated from resulting order, be- cause “[n]o injury occurred until the state judge ruled against” plaintiff
• rejecting plaintiff’s contention that false state- ments to court could be separated from resulting order, be- cause “[n]o injury occurred until the state judge ruled against” plaintiff
• applying the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, reasoning that when false statements to a state court produce an adverse decision, “the state court's judgment is the source of the injury of which plaintiffs complain in federal court”
• rejecting the plaintiffs argument that Exxon Mobil undermined the holding in Epps
• rejecting claim that the injury arose from a party’s false statements in a wage-garnishment suit and ruling instead that the injury arose from the state-court’s order garnishing plaintiffs wages because “[n]o injury occurred until the state judge ruled against [plaintiff]”
• Rooker-Feldman barred claim for damages under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where only source of injury was state-court judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).