Riehm v. Engelking

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Rooker- Feldman doctrine didn’t apply because the parent sought redress for the loss of custody rather than relief from a judgment in an underlying domestic-relations case
• requiring a protective seizure of children to occur pursuant to a court order, probable cause, or exigent circumstances
• “According to Minnesota common law, [a]n individual may not, without legal justification, be confined against his or her will.” (quotation omitted)
• noting the distinction between an injury stemming from a state-court judgment and an injury from some other illegal act or omission; the former is barred, while the latter is not
• “Rooker-Feldman does not apply where the federal plaintiff was not a party in state court.”
• Rooker- Feldman did not apply because claim was independent of the state court’s judgment and alleged unconstitutional actions by defendants in seeking and executing the state court order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).