Case Citator › Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
544 U.S. 280
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
171 of 171
Citing cases (total)
4,974
Treatment dates
2020–2021
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. has been fully reviewed: all 171 flagged citations have been read, with two confirmed limited treatments listed below. The Eastern District of Tennessee and the Sixth Circuit held that Exxon Mobil did not displace circuit precedent applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to interlocutory state-court orders, a question Exxon Mobil left open.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions applied Exxon Mobil positively, reported its effect on older lower-court precedent, or used nearby treatment language for unrelated authorities and case dispositions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

4,974 later cases cite Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.; 171 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court confined Exxon Mobil to its parallel-litigation setting and held that it did not displace circuit precedent applying Rooker-Feldman to interlocutory state-court orders.

    RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee · E.D. Tenn. · filed

    Thus, despite the Supreme Court’s use of the word “judgment” in characterizing its holding elsewhere in the opinion Exxon does not undermine Pieper, because an interlocutory order was not at issue in Exxon.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Sixth Circuit held that Exxon Mobil did not modify its precedent applying Rooker-Feldman to interlocutory state-court orders, expressly answering a question Exxon Mobil left open.

    RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee · Sixth Circuit · filed

    Here, we consider the scope of Rooker-Feldman’s confinement in answering a question that the Court left open: “does [Rooker-Feldman] apply to bar federal actions commenced after the grant of interlocutory relief in a state court proceeding[?]” Richard H. Fallon, Jr., John F. Manning, Daniel J. Meltzer & David L. Shapiro, Hart & Weschler’s the Federal Courts and the Federal System 1411 (7th ed. 2015). But we don’t write on a blank slate. Because we’ve already said Rooker-Feldman does so apply in Pieper, we only answer whether Exxon “mandates modification” of that decision. See United States v. Moody, 206 F.3d 609, 615 (6th Cir. 2000). For the reasons outlined below, we determine that Exxon and Pieper can comfortably coexist and accordingly affirm.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace