Legal Opinion · Dissent
Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 4, 1999No. 97-55379Published
1DissentFletcher, Circuit Judge
The majority frames the central question in this case as “whether the California state courts had preclusive jurisdiction to determine if the state criminal proceedings against Gruntz were excluded from the automatic stay in bankruptcy.” Majority Opinion at 732. For me, the issue is whether we should create a bankruptcy *739exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which teaches that federal courts of limited original jurisdiction may not arrogate appellate powers by reviewing the final judgments of competent state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Durfee v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Kalb v. FeuersteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- In Re Baldwin-United Corporation Litigation. Vincent Erti, Joseph and Elizabeth Chupko, George and Margaret Ledney, William Neil Aicholtz and Janet Aicholtz and Genevieve Novicky on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., Paine Webber Group, Inc., Paine Webber, Inc., Pwjc Insurance Sales, Inc., Planco Inc., Donald B. Marron and Donald E. Nickelson, Paine Webber Group, Inc., Paine Webber Incorporated and Pwjc Insurance Sales, Inc., Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Baldwin-United Corporation and D.H. Baldwin Company, Third-Party-Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.