Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
1923 United States Supreme Court case
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure that would eventually become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the later case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.[1]
Background
The case originated in Indiana, where a judgment had been entered against the plaintiff, Rooker by an Indiana state court. The judgment was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court, and the plaintiff was denied review by the United States Supreme Court.
The plaintiff then filed a claim in the United States district court in Indiana, seeking to overturn the judgment of the Indiana Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. The district court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, and the plaintiff again appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether the United States district court had properly dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Result
The United States Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Van Devanter, affirmed the dismissal of the claim by the United States district court. The Court noted that, for the district court to have heard the case would have been an exercise of appellate jurisdiction; but the U.S. Congress has only granted the district courts original jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, meaning that they can only hear claims that were initially brought in or removed to the district court.
The public source identifies “Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.” as 1923 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Rooker, Fidelity and Trust.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.”, the useful work is to connect “1923 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 8, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q7366199. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1923 and 1983.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. primary sources, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. archive and Rooker research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.