T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶41

T. M. and the dissent's rule also would produce arbitrarily different results depending on when, exactly, a federal suit seeking review of a state-court judgment is fled. In their view, a district court can review a state-court judgment so long as it has not been affirmed by the state high court by the time the federal action is fled. Yet a state high court may well affirm such a judgment while such a federal action is still pending. In that event, the plaintiff would be in the exact same situation Rooker disapproved: seeking to have declared null and void “a judgment of a [state court], which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State.” 263 U. S., at 414. Yet, under T. M. and the dissent's rule, a district court would have jurisdiction to proceed simply because the plaintiff fled her federal suit while the state appellate proceedings were pending, rather than waiting for the state…

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