Everson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 2 state decisions

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 84 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 . “Thus, while inmates may lose many of their freedoms at the prison gate, they retain ‘those rights [that are] not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration.’ ” Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 77 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984)). Our court has recognized that “a convicted prisoner maintains some reasonable expectations of privacy while in prison, particularly where those claims are related to forced exposure to strangers of the opposite sex, even though those privacy rights may be less than those enjoyed by non-prisoners.” Cornwell v. Dahlberg, 963 F.2d 912, 916 (6th Cir.1992); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1227 (6th Cir.1987) (assuming that “there is some vestige of the right to privacy retained by state prisoners and that this right protects them from being forced unnecessarily to expose their bodies to guards of the opposite sex”). As one of our sister circuits has explained, most people “have a special sense of privacy in their genitals, and involuntary exposure of them in the presence of people of the other sex may be especially demeaning and humiliating. When not reasonably necessary, that sort of degradation is not to be visited upon those confined in our prisons.” Lee v. Downs, 641 F.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lunsford v. Sterlite of Ohio, L.L.C. · 353 F. Supp. 2d 900 - Rose v. Saginaw County

2. “A prison official need not run his department as a participatory democracy nor build 'unanimity of opinion' to win deference.”). 10 . Plaintiffs’ counsel stated at argument that the female inmate population in the San Francisco jails ranges between 50 and 110. The Sheriff's Department website states that the total daily inmate population in the jails is approximately 2,200. See San Francisco Sheriff's Department,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 693 F. Supp. 2d 1130 - AMBAT v. City and County of San Francisco

3. “The desire to shield one's unclothed figure from view of strangers * * * is impelled by elementary self-respect and personal dignity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lunsford v. Sterlite of Ohio, L.L.C.