With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in state court, see Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 558-59 (7th Cir.1999), she does not make that claim. Under these circumstances Rooker-Feld-man applies and divested the district court of jurisdiction. Rooker-Feldman applies for the additional reason that despite Dawaji’s assertions to the contrary, the relief she seeks would require that we nullify the state-court judgment. Dawaji’s request for damages is the amount that she would have received had she not been coerced into accepting the settlement. She thus wants the federal court in effect to negate the state-court order approving the agreed-upon child support, maintenance, and property settlement. Rooker-Feldman cannot be circumvented in this way. See Taylor v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 374 F.3d 529, 534 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Maple Lanes, Inc. v. Messer, 186 F.3d 823,

A: holding that a claim seeking the value of plaintiffs foreclosed home plus interest and punitive damages would effectively undo the statecourt foreclosure judgment
B: holding that where plaintiffs were entitled to recover both treble damages and punitive damages under the illinois nursing home care reform act both issues could be submitted to the jury and the plaintiff could choose which award to be reflected in the judgment
C: holding a court may not award punitive damages
D: holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable
A.