3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 35 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co. Anchor | green | “daubert does not require that a party who proffers expert testimony carry the burden of proving to the judge that the expert's assessment of the situation is correct.” | 15 |
| 2 | Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc. | green | “there is an important difference between what is unreliable support and what a trier of fact may conclude is insufficient support for an expert's conclusion.” | 14 |
| 3 | Crowe v. Marchand | green | “the touchstone for the admission of expert testimony in federal court litigation . . . .” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.