subsequently brought suit against the child welfare agency in federal court, claiming that the agency had violated her right to substantive due process by seeking the termination of her custody out of “malice or personal bias.” Id. The child welfare agency argued that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divested the District Court of jurisdiction. The agency urt’s determination that the plaintiff landowners lacked standing to challenge a township’s approval of a subdivision did not bar the plaintiffs from later asserting due process, equal protection, and Just Compensation Clause claims in federal court, because “[u]nder Pennsylvania law, the [state] court could not resolve the merits of the Gullas’ [constitutional] claims if they lack standing to bring their suit”); FOCUS, 75 F.3d at 842 (<HOLDING>); Whiteford v. Reed, 155 F.3d 671, 674 (3d
holding that even though alabama court had jurisdiction over the parties and the issue of custody previous custody order issued by a pennsylvania court was entitled to full faith and credit under us constitution art iv  1 holding that an order issued by the pennsylvania supreme court in which it refused to exercise its kings bench jurisdiction to overturn gag orders issued by a lower state court did not implicitly reject the plaintiffs claim that the gag orders violated the first amendment as pennsylvania law authorized the pennsylvania supreme court to decline to exercise its kings bench jurisdiction where the case did not present an issue of immediate public importance holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that pennsylvania law applied as the parties did not argue choice of law issue and implied that pennsylvania law applied by focusing their arguments on same holding that we are required to predict the position which the pennsylvania supreme court would take in resolving this dispute  and in the absence of a clear statement by the pennsylvania supreme court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in pennsylvania law we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court