Coppenbarger v. Federal Aviation Administration’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Petitioner contends, however, that he should have had an opportunity to cross-examine the experts whom the Administrator consulted in evaluating petitioner’s medical reports. We disagree. Petitioner’s argument might be valid if these experts had affirmatively provided evidence about petitioner’s medical condition. But the Administrator’s purpose in retaining the experts was merely to obtain their help in evaluating the data which petitioner had supplied. The Administrator was entitled to do this, and petitioner had no more right to cross-examine the experts than he had to cross-examine the Administrator himself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Ambulance Service of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Sullivan

2. “(t)he Administrator could take the position that some illnesses are so disabling to a pilot that once an applicant manifests evidence of those illnesses public safety requires that he never be permitted to fly a commercial plane again.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jensen v. Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

3. “means a condition in which a person's intake of alcohol is great enough to damage his physical health or personal or social functioning, or when alcohol has become a prerequisite to his normal functioning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jensen v. Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration