Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.3d 486 - Ernst 93-1929 v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County

Ernst 93-1929 v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.3d 486 · 1997

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP (2010), Anthony Nicini Jr v. Edward Morra (2000)

34 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 state decisions

7301997200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Malley v. Briggs

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Applying the principles set forth in Butz, Imbler 1 , and their progeny to the instant case, we hold that the CYS defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting" dependency proceedings. Their immunity is broad enough to include the formulation and presentation of recommendations to the court in the course of such proceedings.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not preclude the district court from deciding those claims, because a ruling that the defendants violated Ernst’s rights to substantive due process by making recommendations to the state court out of malice or personal bias would not have required the court to find that the state court judgments made on the basis of those recommendations were erroneous.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in order to grant the federal plaintiff the relief sought, the federal court must determine that the [state] court judgment was erroneously entered or must take action that would render the judgment ineffectual,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.