have also concluded that “Rooker-Feldman does not bar individual constitutional claims by persons not parties to earlier state court litigation____” Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 298 (3d Cir.1992). When a plaintiff seeks to litigate a claim in a federal court, the existence of a state court judgment in another ease bars the federal proceeding under Rooker-Feldman only when entertaining the federal court claim would be the equivalent of an appellate review of that order. For that reason, Rooker-Feldman applies only when in order to grant the federal plaintiff the relief sought, the federal court must determine that the state court judgment was erroneously entered or must take action that would render that judgment ineffectual. Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873, 886 n. 11 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote
holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 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 holding that district court could impose attorney fees where plaintiffs lawsuit patently had no legal merit 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