Dinardo v. Miller
This text of 184 F. App'x 865 (Dinardo v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The district court’s final order of dismissal is affirmed. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-88, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1315-18, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir.2001); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, have no authority to review the final judg[866]*866ments of state courts. The doctrine extends not only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a state court, but also to claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
184 F. App'x 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinardo-v-miller-ca11-2006.