EXXON MOBIL CORP. ET AL.

v.

SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005)
  …er rights.” Id., at 266. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among Courts of Appeals on the question whether RLUIPA’s institutionalized-persons provision, § 3 of the Act, is consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 543 U. S. 924 (2004).7 Compare 349 F. 3d 257 with Madison v. Riter, 355 F. 3d 310, 313 (CA4 2003) (§3 of RLUIPA does not violate the Establishment Clause); Charles v. Verhagen, 348 F. 3d 601, 610-611 (CA7 2003) (same); Mayweathers v. Newland, 314 F. 3d 1062, 1068…
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005)
  …aware, ExxonMobil would be endeavoring in the federal action to “invalidate” the state-court judgment, “the very situation,” the court concluded, “contemplated by Rooker-Feldman’s ‘inextricably intertwined’ bar.” Id., at 106. We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 924 (2004), to resolve conflict among the Courts of Appeals over the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.7 III Rooker and Feldman exhibit the limited circumstances m which thi…
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005)
  …as the claims of plaintiffs who do allege a sufficient amount in controversy. Our decision turns on the correct interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 1367. The question has divided the Courts of Appeals, and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 543 U. S. 924 (2004). We hold that, where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plai…