Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Exxon Mobil Corp. Vs. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 30, 2005

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

64 entries 5 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Howlett Vs. Rose US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1990
  2. Mcclellan Vs. Carland US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1910
  3. Younger Vs. Harris US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  4. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Vs. Epstein US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1996
  5. Rhines Vs. Weber US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2005
  6. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
    Search
  7. Basic Industries Corp. - 03-1696 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Saudi
    Search
  8. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, at issue in this case, has been applied by this Court only twice, in Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  9. Trust Co ., 263 U. S. 413 , and in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
    Search
  10. Feldman , 460 U. S., at 476, the District Courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, see, e.g., Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public
    Search
  11. litigation, Rooker-Feldman is not triggered simply by the entry of judgment in state court. See, e.g., McClellan v. Carland
    Search
  12. the federal action in favor of the state-court litigation. See, e.g., Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
    Search
  13. Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First
    Search
  14. reversed and remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
    Search
  15. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Chemical Arabia, Inc., and Mobil Yanbu Petrochemi- Cal Company, Inc., Petitioners V. Saudi
    Search
  16. what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, applied by this Court only twice, first in Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  17. Trust Co ., 263 U. S. 413 (1923), then, 60 years later, in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
    Search
  18. See, e.g., Moccio v. New
    Search
  19. s judgment. I In Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  20. Id., at 415, 417. Sixty years later, the Court decided District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
    Search
  21. Feldman have done so only in passing or to explain why those cases did not dictate dismissal. See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public
    Search
  22. ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish
    Search
  23. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco
    Search
  24. abstaining under Younger v. Harris
    Search
  25. s claims necessarily called for review of the merits of its state appeal). See also Martin v. Wilks
    Search
  26. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil
    Search
  27. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive
    Search
  28. accord Doran v. Salem
    Search
  29. Burford v. Sun
    Search
  30. of Tex. v. Pullman
    Search
  31. accord Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein
    Search
  32. Marrese v. American
    Search
  33. GASH Assocs. v. Village
    Search
  34. accord Noel v. Hall
    Search
  35. F. 3d, at 104 (quoting E. B. v. Verniero
    Search
  36. s judgment. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
    Search
  37. U. S. 462 , 482, n. 16 (1983). Footnote 2 Respondent Saudi Basic Industries Corp. urges that ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish
    Search
  38. decided Rooker , and 1983, when it decided Feldman , the Court cited Rooker in one opinion, Fishgold v. Sullivan
    Search
  39. Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275 , 283 (1946), in reference to the finality of prior judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  40. s dissent from denial of certiorari in Florida State Bd. of Dentistry v. Mack
    Search
  41. the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the trial-court judgment in favor of ExxonMobil, Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil
    Search
  42. Yanbu Petrochemical Co. , 866 A. 2d 1 (2005), and has denied reargument en banc, Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil
    Search
  43. There is nothing necessarily inappropriate, however, about filing a protective action. See, e.g., Rhines v. Weber
    Search
  44. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Dept
    Search
  45. Government of Virgin Islands v. Neadle
    Search
  46. see also England v. Louisiana
    Search
  47. Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  48. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
    Search
  49. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public
    Search
  50. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial