Cts. L.Rev. 1, 1 (2006) ("[T]he 'inextricably intertwined' formulation ... had been a primary test for many lower courts.”); Suzanna Sherry, Judicial Federalism in the Trenches: The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine in Action, 74 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1085, 1097 (1999) (referring to Justice Marshall's concurrence as the "most useful-and frequently quoted' — definition of 'inextricably intertwined' ”). 7 . The exception is United States v. Timley, 443 F.3d 615 (8th Cir.2006), in which we applied Justice Marshall’s approach and held that the plaintiffs claims were not inextricably intertwined with a final state-court judgment. Id. at 628. Surely, then, Exxon's more limited formulation of Rooker-Feldman would have produced the same outcome. 8 . See, e.g., In re Madera, 586 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); MAPP Const., LLC v. M & R Drywall, Inc., 294
holding that rookerfeldman barred a debtors action to rescind a mortgage because it was inextricably intertwined with a state courts foreclosure judgment which was premised on the existence of a valid mortgage holding that debtors allegation that mortgage holder failed to provide him with the statutorily required notice of foreclosure was sufficient to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure holding that foreclosure of a prior mortgage extinguished a declaration of condominium and interests in a parking lot that were subject to the mortgage holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment