This should generate interesting Rooker-Feldman doctrine; at least some circuits might regard even third party claims seeking relief incompatible with a state court decision as barred. See Kamilewicz v BancBoston. Any decision that limits or confines Rooker-Feldman would benefit all of us.
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Eastman, John wrote: > The federal claims are legislative vote dilution, breach of the voters > right to undiluted representation, nullification of the right to vote > for a constitutional amendment, all in violation of the Equal Protection > and/or Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment; plus a Republican > Guarantee clause claim. > > The complaint, TRO, and brief, plus the court's order, are available on > the Claremont Institute's web site, > http://claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/0030714nevada.html > > Disclosure: I'm counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the case. > > A parallel suit, naming the Nevada Supreme Court and its Justices as > defendants, was also filed by another attorney, on his own behalf. That > complaint is available on-line as well, but I don't have the URL at the > moment. > > John C. Eastman > Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law > Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional > Jurisprudence > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Very odd development in the Nevada Supreme Court decision > > > (1) Does anyone have any idea of the specific federal change > that's being made here? > > (2) I've never heard of any "en banc hearing with all district > judges" before -- can anyone help me out on this? Thanks, > > Eugene > > > > http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-14-Mon-2003/news/filing. > html > > Filing challenges high court ruling > > > REVIEW-JOURNAL > > > > U.S. District Judge Philip Pro temporarily restrained the action by > which the Nevada Assembly passed a tax bill with less than a two-thirds > vote. He ordered an en banc hearing with all district judges for 9 a.m. > Wednesday in Reno and Las Vegas. > > The Assembly voted 26-16 Sunday for a bill that would increase taxes by > a record $788 million over the next two years. > > Today, Republican lawmakers, citizens and business groups -- upset with > Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court rejecting the two-thirds > vote requirement to pass taxes -- filed an action in U.S. District Court > seeking to block the court's ruling. > > Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the federal > action is necessary because the 6-1 Supreme Court ruling allowing only a > simple majority to raise taxes is unconstitutional. > > "We don't believe the court's decision that we can ignore the > constitution is legal," he said. > >
