Coniker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
September 2001
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 23 U.S.C. § 152 · 23 U.S.C. § 409
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The manifest Congressional intent in enacting 23 U.S.C. § 409 was to "foster the free flow of safety-related information by precluding the possibility that such information later would be admissible in civil suits. The interest to be served by such legislation is to obtain information with regard to the safety of roadways free from the fear of future tort actions" ( Perkins v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation, 65 Ohio App.3d 487, 500 , 584 N.E.2d 794, 802 ; see also Palacios v. Louisiana and Delta RR, 740 So.2d 95 ; Reichert v. State of Louisiana, 694 So.2d 193 ). The statute has the dual effect of (1) facilitating candor in the evaluation of highway safety hazards, and (2) prohibiting federally required record keeping from being used as a tool by civil litigants ( see, Robertson v. Union Pacific RR Co., 954 F.2d 1433 (8th Cir.1992); Stephens v. Town of Jonesboro, 642 So.2d 274 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 152 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
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.