Miller v. Appellate Court

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rooker-Feldman did not apply because the complaint focused on the defendant’s “actions in the process of obtaining the judgment and order”
• recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is limited in scope and does not bar jurisdiction over actions alleging independent claims arising from conduct in underlying state proceedings”
• recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is limited in scope and does not bar jurisdiction over actions alleging independent claims arising from conduct in underlying state proceedings”
• recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is limited in scope and does not bar jurisdiction over actions alleging independent claims arising from conduct in underlying state proceedings”
• recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is limited in scope and does not bar jurisdiction over actions alleging independent claims arising from conduct in underlying state proceedings”
• recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is limited in scope and does not bar jurisdiction over actions alleging independent claims arising from conduct in underlying state proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).