Conoco Incorporated v. Oneok, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
91 F.3d 1405 · 1996
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2012
6 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on McKinney v. Gannett Co. · Mistletoe Express Service, Inc. v. Culp · Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance v. Salazar · Ji Case Credit Corporation v. Crites · Holland v. Dolese Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if the proof is all one way or so overwhelmingly preponderant in favor of the movant as to permit no other rational conclusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Conoco committed a tort and the State of Oklahoma suffered an injury when the gasoline and fuel oil from the 1976 leak polluted state waters. The parties stipulated that the State ordered Conoco to remediate the 1976 leak site. [ONEOK] contends, however, that the expenses incurred by Conoco to remediate the leak were Conoco’s own damages and therefore form the basis of an independent claim rather than a contribution claim. We disagree. The costs Conoco incurred in complying with the State’s order were the direct result of a tort committed against state waters, and Conoco presented evidence at trial that [ONEOK] was jointly and severally liable for the leak that caused the pollution. We therefore hold that the jury should have been instructed under a contribution theory on the state-ordered remediation costs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.