Schenck v. Superior Court of Cal.

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 could no longer apply after the state court judgment was vacated
• noting that counsel “had an ethical duty to alert the court” to a development that “affects subject-matter jurisdiction”
• noting that counsel \had an ethical duty to alert the court\ to a development that \affects subject-matter jurisdiction\
• noting that the Seventh Circuit has not abandoned the standard
• “We are skeptical about the wisdom of asking whether something is ‘intertwined’ (‘inextricably’ or extricably) with a state court’s judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).