Mauro Pennisi, Inc. v. Poospatuck Cultural Found., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Rooker-Feldman did not bar a claim that the state-court plaintiffs’ lawyers obtained a settlement judgment through fraudulent misrepresentations
• stating that Rooker-Feldman applies only to state court “final judgment[s]”
• stating, in dicta, that Rooker-Feldman applies to “final judgment[s] rendered by a state’s court of last resort”
• Rooker- Feldman does not bar a claim that the state-court plaintiffs’ lawyers obtained a settlement judgment through fraudulent misrepresentations
• “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to this case because adjudicating [the plaintiff’s] claims did not require the district court to review any final judgment rendered by a state court.”
• Rooker-Feldman did not apply because petition for review was pending before Texas Supreme Court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).