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 148 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2021–2024 · leading case:
Barreras v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
Barreras v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “The State moved for a protective order, arguing that testimony from the government employees was privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 407 . The superior court granted the protective order and partially blocked the depositions.”
Courtois v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (E.D. Mo. 2024).
· cites it 3× “Loumiet impermissibly relied on data that should be excluded pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 407 . Contrary to the Defendants’ 1Section 130(d) provides as follows: Survey and schedule of projects.”
Garcia v. N.M. Dep't of Transp. (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
“3 {1} The direct appeal in this case involves a federal statutory evidentiary privilege 4 created by 23 U.S.C. § 407 (hereinafter § 407). 1 The cross-appeal challenges the 5 district court’s denial of a bill of costs.”
Linda Nestor, Apps/cross-resps V. State Of Washington, Resp/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
“6 Finally, the State argued that Dunlap based his report on data protected by the evidentiary privilege under 23 U.S.C. § 407 , which applies to information for the purpose of developing highway safety construction improvements using federal highway funds.”
Garcia v. N.M. Dep’t of Transp., 535 P.3d 728 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
“{1} The direct appeal in this case involves a federal statutory evidentiary privilege created by 23 U.S.C. § 407 (hereinafter § 407). 1 The cross-appeal challenges the district court’s denial of a bill of costs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.