Raymond Homola v. Paul McNamara

How courts have described this case

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

• holding district court lacked jurisdiction over claim seeking damages for execution of inspection order
• noting that dismissal under Rooker-Feldman is for lack of jurisdiction, which is “based on the principle that inferior federal courts cannot reexamine U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)
• noting that dismissal under Rooker-Feldman is for lack of jurisdiction, which is “based on the principle that inferior federal courts cannot reexamine the decisions of state tribunals in civil litigation.” (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)
• “a decision by a state court, however erroneous, is not itself a violation of the Constitution actionable in federal court”
• lower federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court orders and such lawsuits should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
• “The judge must be acting as a judge, rather than as an ombudsman or administrative official. Judge Stack had subject-matter jurisdiction and played a judicial role. That is sufficient for immunity.” (internal citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).