No. 21-703
RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-procedure civil-rights due-process exxon-mobil fifth-amendment interlocutory-order property-taking rooker-feldman rooker-feldman-doctrine state-court-order takings
Key Terms:
Arbitration SocialSecurity Takings FifthAmendment DueProcess Securities Jurisdiction
Arbitration SocialSecurity Takings FifthAmendment DueProcess Securities Jurisdiction
Latest Conference:
2022-01-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a United States District Court can dismiss claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment due to an interlocutory state court order based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED After Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is it improper for a United States District Court to dismiss claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution for the unlawful taking of property due to an interlocutory state court order on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which this Court held in Exxon is applicable only to final state-court judgments?
Docket Entries
2022-01-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-15
Brief of respondent City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee in opposition filed.
2021-11-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 15, 2021)
Attorneys
City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee
Nathan D. Rowell — Ogle, Rowell & Penland, P.C., Respondent
Nathan D. Rowell — Ogle, Rowell & Penland, P.C., Respondent
RLR Investments, LLC
Anthony C. White — Thompson Hine LLP, Petitioner
Anthony C. White — Thompson Hine LLP, Petitioner