PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

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 Jensens’ substantive and procedural due process claims survived Rooker-Feld-man, “[wjithout addressing every underlying factual allegation against each defendant here ”
• explaining that “the Due Process Clause provides some level of protection for parents’ decisions regarding their children’s medical care”
• holding Rooker- Feldman barred malicious-prosecution claims for damages where “a lower federal court would necessarily have to review and reject those [state-court] judgments in order for [plaintiffs] to succeed”
• finding that Rooker - Feldman barred malicious prosecution claims removed from state court
• noting that while procedural due process “does not prevent the state from depriving an individual of liberty or property,” it does “require that a fair procedure be provided for the deprivation” (quotations omitted) (emphasis added)
• holding Rooker- Feldman did not apply because the claims did “not rest on any allegation concerning the state-court proceedings or judgment” and “would be identical even if there were no state-court orders” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).