T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶24
In the years since Rooker and Feldman, this Court has refused to expand the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In the “narrow ground occupied by Rooker-Feldman,” however, the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed its rule. Exxon, 544 U. S., at 284. In Exxon, the Court held that the “Rooker- Feldman doctrine . . . is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state- court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” 544 U. S., at 284. In those cases, Rooker-Feldman continues to require “dismiss[al] for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.” 544 U. S., at 284; see also Lance v. Dennis, 546 U. S. 459, 466 (2006) (per curiam) (“The doctrine applies only in ‘limited circumstances’ . . . where a party in effect seeks to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.