Thompson v. Schwaebe

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the takings injury alleged was only complete when state court ac- tually condemned the property
• explaining the critical difference between failing to obtain relief from the state court and suffering an injury from the state court judgment
• finding plaintiffs’ claim that defendants brought a state condemnation action against them due to political retaliation barred by Rooker-Feldman, as “the injury alleged was only complete when the state court actually condemned the property”
• finding plaintiffs’ claim that defendants brought a state condemnation action against them due to political retaliation barred by Rooker-Feldman, as “the injury alleged was only complete when the state court actually condemned the property”
• applying 2 Moreover, “[i]f Rooker–Feldman applies, [federal courts] lack jurisdiction to consider” whether res judicata applies. 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 527 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Geils, 82 F.3d at 1365 (7th Cir. 1996
• “Where Rooker-Feldman applies, lower federal courts have no power to address other affirmative defenses, including res judicata.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).