Cochrane v. Quattrocchi’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 11 · 1991
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Keisling v. Ser-Jobs for Progress, Inc. (1994), Jd Havinga v. Crowley Towing and Transportation Company Jd Havinga (1994)
12 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Hudson v. Palmer · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · Pell v. Procunier · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] prison visitor confronted with the choice between submitting to a strip search or foregoing [sic] a visit cannot provide a 'legally cognizable consent,' " because "it is the very choice to which [the visitor] [is] put that is constitutionally intolerable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“some as-yet undefined 'level of individualized suspicion.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ajbsent any evidence that appellant ever violated a prison visitation rule, or even supplied Cochrane with drugs, a reasonable juror could have concluded that Cochrane’s contraband drugs were supplied by prison officials or other inmates. Thus, the jury could have found that the strip search of appellant was unreasonable because it was based on no “individualized suspicion.””
1 later decision 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.