Rooker Feldman Doctrine Explained

If your state court case has been deemed non-final by the court of appeal, it means the judgment is not yet final and appealable. Therefore, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, you are not considered a "state court loser" since the federal court cannot review a non-final state court judgment.
Do you need any specific legal advice regarding your case's next steps?

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine typically applies to cases where the state court judgment is final. Since your appeal is considered non-final, the doctrine likely does not apply yet. You may need to wait until the state court issues a final judgment before any federal court action can be considered.
Would you like more information on your potential next steps in the state court system?

For Rooker-Feldman purposes, a "state court loser" is defined as someone who has lost a final judgment in state court and seeks federal court review. Since your case is deemed non-final by the state court of appeals, you are not currently considered a "state court loser" under this doctrine.
Do you need guidance on how to proceed with your non-final state court case?

I cannot search for specific cases, but here are some precedents related to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in the Second Circuit:
- Hoblock v. Albany County Board of Elections, * F.3d * (2d Cir. *): Clarifies the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
- Green v. Mattingly, * F.3d * (2d Cir. *): Discusses circumstances under which Rooker-Feldman does not apply.
Would you like more information on these cases?

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing state court decisions. However, federal district courts can review non-final state decisions under certain circumstances, such as:
- When there's a federal question involved.
- If the case involves an ongoing state proceeding that violates federal law (Younger abstention doctrine exceptions).
Would you like more details on these exceptions?

A "federal question" involves a case where the issue concerns the interpretation or application of federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, treaties, or regulations. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases presenting federal questions under * U.S.C. § *.
Would you like more information on how federal question jurisdiction might apply to your case?

* U.S.C. § * grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. This means federal courts can hear cases involving federal law issues.
Do you need more information on how this statute might apply to your situation?

Yes, federal district courts can hear non-final state civil rights cases if they involve a federal question under * U.S.C. § *. For example, if your case involves a violation of federal civil rights laws, the federal court may have jurisdiction.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with filing a federal civil rights claim?

Federal district courts' jurisdiction over civil cases is primarily described by * U.S.C. § *, which grants them original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Do you need more information on federal court jurisdiction or how to file a claim?

The principles of preclusion include:
- Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion):
- Prevents re-litigation of claims already judged.
- Requires a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Involves the same parties or their privies in both actions.
- Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion):
- Prevents re-litigation of issues that were already litigated and decided.
- Requires that the issue was essential to the judgment in the prior litigation.
- Applies to parties or those in privity with parties in the prior case.
Do you need more details on how these principles might affect your case?

For Rooker-Feldman purposes, a "state court loser" is defined as a party who has lost a final judgment in state court and then seeks to have a federal court review and invalidate that state court decision. Since your appeal is non-final, this doctrine likely does not apply to you. Would you like more information on how to proceed with your non-final state court case?

The definition of a "state court loser" for Rooker-Feldman purposes is derived from various court rulings and legal interpretations. Specifically, it's based on the doctrine's principles as established in cases like *Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.* and *District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman*. These cases outline that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions if the state court judgment is final.
Would you like more information on how these cases define the doctrine?

Sure! Here's a brief overview of how the key cases define a "state-court loser" under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine:
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (*):
- Established that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court judgments.

- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (*):
- Reaffirmed that federal courts cannot act as appellate courts for state court decisions.
- A "state-court loser" is someone who, after a final judgment in state court, seeks federal relief to overturn that judgment.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these cases?

The user appears to be seeking a deeper understanding of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its application to their case. Here's a concise summary to clarify:
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: Prevents federal courts from reviewing state court decisions.
- "State-Court Loser": Defined as a party who lost in state court and seeks federal court review of a final state court judgment.
- Non-Final Judgment: The doctrine does not apply if the state court decision is non-final.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with your non-final state court case?

It means that if a state court hasn't made a decision on the substantive issues of a claim, the "actually decided" requirement for issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) is not met. Therefore, the issue can potentially be litigated again in a different court.
Is there a specific issue you are concerned about regarding this concept?

No, a "state-court loser" under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is defined as someone who lost a final judgment in state court and seeks federal court review of that state court judgment. It does not apply to someone seeking federal review of a non-state court judgment.
Do you need more information on how to proceed with your case?

Case Rating: *
This statement means that if a state court has not made a decision on the actual substance (merits) of a plaintiff's claims, the federal court still has the jurisdiction to hear those claims. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn't apply because there hasn't been a final judgment on the merits in state court.
Is there a particular case or situation you’re dealing with related to this principle?

In New York state court, a "loser" is generally defined as a party who has received an unfavorable final judgment or decision in their case. This definition is relevant for various legal doctrines, including appeal processes and preclusion principles.
Do you need more information on how this might relate to your specific case?

I don't have the capability to find specific case precedents. However, you might find relevant information by researching New York state appellate court cases discussing the term "loser." Legal research tools like Westlaw or LexisNexis could be useful for this purpose.
Would you like guidance on how to use these tools or need assistance with a specific aspect of your case?