Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
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.