Legal Opinion
Hall v. Callahan
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided May 31, 2013No. 12-3708PublishedCited by 89 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Sharon Hall and James Cody appeal the district court’s dismissal of their § 1983 action which challenged, on several constitutional grounds, a state court judgment declaring them to be vexatious litigators under Ohio Rev.Code § 2323.52. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ due process,' equal protection, and as-applied constitutional challenges under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and held that the vexatious litigator state statute was facially constitutional. For the *452following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
I.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- 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
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- SFS Check, LLC v. First Bank of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
- RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tenn.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- Isaacs v. DBI-ASG Coinvestor Fund, III, LLC (In Re Isaacs)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018
- Wohleber v. Skurko (In re Wohleber)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int'l, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.