Cooper v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “Cooper and two friends had a roadside encounter with Charles Williams in Crittenden County. Williams threatened to kill them. Cooper did not strike Williams, although one of the friends, Jeffrey McGee, did. When investigator Martin interviewed Williams about the fight, he could not recall how many people were involved, or who, or how many, hit him. Although Williams told Martin he had consumed “several beers” the night of the fight, Martin did not interview the paramedics who treated him at the scene. Williams later told Martin that, according to his nephew, Cooper and Bradley Gill were at the scene of the fight. Martin contacted Cooper’s father about bringing in Cooper (then a minor) for a statement. Cooper’s father called Martin the next day, saying that Cooper wanted to give his side of the story, that he had not touched Williams during the fight. The Coopers later met Martin by chance at a gas station, where Martin joked with Cooper about the fight and told him he had nothing to worry about. Cooper offered at that time to give a statement. Cooper’s counsel contacted Martin about setting up a meeting with his client. Cooper’s father also called Martin many times to set up a meeting. Despite these efforts, Martin did not meet with them. Martin never spoke with any of Cooper’s friends, either. The victim Williams swore to affidavits for the arrests of Cooper, McGee, and Gill on charges of both first- and second-degree battery. Martin stopped investigating, gave the prosecuto”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 805 F. Supp. 2d 750 - Dean v. Smith

2. “Martin failed to interview any of the suspects, joked with Cooper that there was nothing to worry about, credited the intoxicated victim’s sworn account of the attack over Cooper’s father’s account, and misrepresented (to the prosecutor) the suspects’ lack of cooperation. Assuming these facts to be true, Martin conducted a negligent investigation, but, under Brockinton , the facts “do not rise to the level of recklessness that shocks the conscience.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 805 F. Supp. 2d 750 - Dean v. Smith