Second Circuit: Joseph Watley, Karin Hasemann v. Department of Children and Families

 

Under state's collateral preclusion principles, since the mental condition of the parents was sufficiently considered in the removal proceedings, the standard-specific question of sufficient accommodation can't be relitigated in federal court under the disabilities statute.

Joseph Watley, Karin Hasemann v. Department of Children and Families

Third Circuit: Craig Geness v. Jason Cox

An argument for equitable tolling must be raised in the opening appellate brief; otherwise, it's waived.

When inquiring as to whether a nolle prosequi was a favorable determination, a court must look beyond the four corners of the order.

Given an affidavit to the contrary and absent any deposition testimony, speculation that exculpatory evidence was known at the time was insufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact.

Claim of discrimination under federal law is a new and separate claim not barred by Rooker-Feldman after earlier state court adjudication relating to the events.

Motion to amend at summary judgment stage within a year of filing is presumptively timely.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172073p.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Brian King v. The City of Crestwood, MO

Where plaintiff lacks standing to seek federal review of state court decision on the merits, dismissal under Rooker-Feldman is not mandatory; the case can be dismissed for standing.

Municipal court is not a policymaking authority; the outcome of an adjudication therefore can't give rise to a municipal liability claim under S1983.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/164560P.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Linda Isaacs v. DBI-ASG Coinvestor Fund, III, LLC

Federal court cannot revisit state court foreclosure ruling holding that a facially problematic lien in fact attached, since vindicating the lien isn't barred by the shield of bankruptcy discharge; the discharge only protects from claims against the person.  Further, Rooker-Feldman prohibits lower federal courts from hearing a state-adjudicated claim even where there is explicit statutory jurisdiction.

As state law holds that a mortgage is valid even absent perfection, a claim that the lien was perfected in violation of the stay can provide grounds for subsequent avoidance, since a federal court's determination that the interest wasn't perfected does not contradict the state court's holding that the mortgage was valid.

Statutorily, the second trustee acquired the necessary powers; equitably, the debtor's ex post acquisition of the derivative powers of the second trustee was an appropriate flexible remedy.

Amicus had another idea, but the parties didn't raise it, so it wasn't considered.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0145p-06.pdf

DC Circuit: John Croley v. Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

District Court has jurisdiction over claim alleging that DC Courts mismanaged tort recovery of plaintiff, since the claim sounds in tort and presents freestanding claims under the Federal Constitution; the claim doesn't amount to an attempt to revisit the earlier state court judgment, as the plaintiff prevailed in the DC action.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/20FB3AD02C5D887D852582C200529F33/$file/15-5080.pdf