Nicholson v. Scoppetta’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.3d 154 · 2003
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Zhen Nan Lin v. United States Department of Justice (2006), Cox v. Warwick Valley Central School District (2011)
19 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
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 · Mathews v. Eldridge · City of Canton v. Harris · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Stanley v. Illinois
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Does the definition of a “neglected child” under N.Y. Family Ct. Act § 1012 (f), (h) include instances in which the sole allegation of neglect is that the parent or other person legally responsible for the child’s care allows the child to witness domestic abuse against the caretaker? 2. Can the injury or possible injury, if any, that results to a child who has witnessed domestic abuse against a parent or other caretaker constitute “danger” or “risk” to the child’s “life or health,” as those terms are defined in the N.Y. Family Ct. Act §§ 1022 , 1024, 1026-1028? 3. Does the fact that the child witnessed such abuse suffice to demonstrate that “removal is necessary,” N.Y. Family Ct. Act §§ 1022 , 1024, 1027, or that “removal was in the child’s best interests,” N.Y. Family Ct. Act §§ 1028 , 1052(b)(i)(A), or must the child protective agency offer additional, particularized evidence to justify removal?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As we observed in Tenenbaum , a war-rantless arrest can usually be justified by the existence of probable cause to arrest arising at the time of the arresting officer’s action. By analogy, then, we could conclude that there is no Fourth Amendment violation committed by ACS officials carrying out an ex parte removal where there was probable cause to believe that there existed facts to merit emergency removal under New York law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“usually consists of clearly erroneous findings of fact or the application of an incorrect legal standard.”
2 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.