the doctrine to the those kinds of cases from which the doctrine derived. 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Post -Exxon, the lower courts cannot rely on Rooker-Feldman to dismiss a case unless, inter alia, the federal plaintiff seeks redress of an injury caused by an allegedly erroneous state court decision; if the plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation by an adverse party independent of the injury caused by the state court judgment, the doctrine does not bar jurisdiction. Id.; Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., 434 F.3d 432, 437 (6th Cir.2006) (reiterating that Rooker-Feldman does not apply when the Plaintiff complains of a wrong independent of injuries caused by a related state court judgment); Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 280 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs first assert that Rook-er-Feldman
holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims holding that rookerfeldman does not apply when the plaintiffs injury rests not on the state court judgment itself but rather on the alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the defendant 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 although the state court affirmed the zoning board of appeals dismissal of plaintiffs appeal the statecourt judgment did not trigger rookerfeldman where the complaint did not allege that the judgment itself violated federal law 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