With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the courts of such State ... from which they are taken." 28 U.S.C. § 1738. 3 . The doctrine stems from the United States Supreme Court decisions in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). It is premised on both prudential grounds, namely the preservation of system consistency, and statutory grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (giving the United States Supreme Court exclusive federal jurisdiction to review state court judgments); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1334 (defining the jurisdiction of federal district courts as original, not appellate). 4 .See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Miller v. Burns (In re Burns), 395

A: holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim
B: holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar
C: 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
D: holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine is confined to cases brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments
D.