LeoGrande v. LeoGrande

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that private party who sought a protection order from a state court was not a state actor and could not be sued under Section 1983
• holding that if the four parts of the doctrine are met, the federal court lacks jurisdiction “even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.”
• holding that “[j]udges are absolutely immune from suit” for money damages arising from their judicial acts, even if such acts took “place ex parte and without notice or a hearing” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that “[j]udges are absolutely immune from suit” for money damages arising from their judicial acts, even if such acts took “place ex parte and without notice or a hearing” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that as-applied constitutional challenges to state-court orders are barred by Rooker-Feldman but facial challenges are not
• explaining that “a private litigant undertak[ing] the state court proceedings in bad faith” is not enough to satisfy this exception

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).