would “deny a legal conclusion that the state court has reached.” 441 F,3d at 1145 (brackets omitted) (quoting Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517). Our case involves a state court’s division of property in a divorce rather than an award of child custody. But the principle is equally applicable. While some of Mr. Flanders’s claims are for relief from the state court’s orders themselves, other claims could theoretically proceed independently of the state court’s orders. All of these claims are inconsistent with the divorce court’s orders, but the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine bars only those claims seeking relief from those orders, like the claims seeking relief from the child-custody orders in the Bolden illustration. See Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 441-42 (7th. Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). 2. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes
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 barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the state courts purportedly erroneous judgment and the relief sought would require the district court to determine that the state courts decision was wrong and thus void holding that the apparent denial of the husbands request for an order compelling the wife to deliver to him the personal property he had been awarded in their divorce judgment did not constitute a modification of the original divorce judgment holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine did not preclude a claim for damages based on wrongdoing that had led to an erroneous judgment in a divorce proceeding