T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶43
In fact, T. M. and the dissent’s rule would needlessly complicate the Rooker-Feldman analysis. It is not always straightforward to determine whether a given state-court judgment is a reviewable final judgment under §1257(a) because that question requires determining whether the judgment is both “subject to no further review or correction in any other state tribunal” and also “an effective determination of the litigation.” Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Cal., 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945). Nor is it necessarily clear when state proceedings have “ended.” See Fed eración de Maestros de P. R., 410 F. 3d, at 24–25 (describing test to determine whether proceedings have functionally “ended”). For example, in this case, the parties dispute whether the consent order is appealable under Maryland law. See Brief in Opposition 23–24; Reply Brief for Petitioner 9–10. If it is not, then the…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.