Case Citator › Catz v. Chalker

Catz v. Chalker

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

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
142 F.3d 279
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
2005
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Catz v. Chalker has been abrogated on its use of preclusion principles in the Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional inquiry. In Coles v. Granville, the Sixth Circuit identified Catz's preclusion analysis as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's later decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. Catz's separate holdings on domestic relations, notice before dismissal, and private attorneys acting under color of state law remain in use.
More on how this was screened

All 36 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

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.

36 later cases cite Catz v. Chalker; 36 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 Catz v. Chalker?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court confined Rooker-Feldman to federal suits seeking review and rejection of state judgments, displacing Catz's use of preclusion principles as part of that jurisdictional test.

    Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Rooker-Feldman does not otherwise override or supplant preclusion doctrine or augment the circumscribed doctrines that allow federal courts to stay or dismiss proceedings in deference to state-court actions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Catz v. Chalker 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