T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶77
Thus, both Marbury and Bollman support Rooker’s first premise that to reverse or modify the allegedly erroneous judgment of another court is to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Federal courts must inquire into the nature of the jurisdiction a party seeks to invoke and whether it takes “an appellate form,” regardless of the label placed on the paper filed in the court. Ex parte Watkins, 7 Pet. 568, 573 (1833) (Story, J., for the Court); accord, ante, at 10. And, they further explain that “seek[ing] to revise the acts of ” another court is “appellate” in nature. Ex parte Watkins, 7 Pet., at 573. Whether the court hears the claim in the form of a mandamus petition as in Marbury, a habeas petition as in Bollman, or a bill in equity as in Rooker, if a party asks one court to revise the judgment of another court for errors of law, it invokes appellate jurisdiction. The question is then…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.