With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that foreclosure of a prior mortgage extinguished a declaration of condominium and interests in a parking lot that were subject to the mortgage
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage
C.