the Hot Springs Chancery Court specifically found as follows: “Under the terms of the [Disposition Statement], upon the dissolution of the marriage by court order, all control and direction of the tissues as of January 29, 1997, was relinquished to the [the IVF Program Director].” Any ruling in the case at bar in Dodson’s favor, i.e., that the federal constitution demands the return of the embryos to Dodson, would wholly undermine this part of the Hot Springs Chancery Court’s ruling in Dodson I. In Dodson II, the Pulaski Chancery Court determined the IVF Program Director had the right to dispose of the embryos. Even if that determination were technically obiter dictum, it was not a stray remark on an issue not presented to it. Cf. Stemler v. Florence, 350 F.3d 578, 589 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). This is not a case in which the state court
holding that even if the plaintiffs independent claim was inextricably linked to the state court decision preclusion law was the correct solution to challenge the federal claim not rookerfeldman  holding rookerfeldman did not preclude a federal lawsuit where state court only discussed related claim which was not an issue that was salient to the state court in dicta holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff holding that federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear case notwithstanding rookerfeldman doctrine where plaintiff filed federal suit while certiorari petition to new mexico supreme court was pending in similar state court action holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine