T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶106

The Court’s first mistake is failing to believe that Exxon means what it says. The Court acknowledges that Exxon limits Rooker-Feldman to “‘cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name.’” Ante, at 7 (quoting Exxon, 544 U. S., at 284). But it ignores that Exxon identifies the defining features of those cases and specifically notes that “both” had been filed “after the state proceedings ended.” 544 U. S., at 291; see Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 531 (2011) (reiterating that Rooker and Feldman were filed “after the state proceedings ended”). Almost every circuit has recognized the significance of this language. See n. 1, su pra. This Court dismisses it in a footnote. Ante, at 8, n. 5.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.