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.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 34 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 Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co. Anchor | green | “require anything approaching absolute certainty.” | 9 |
| 2 | Tinna Dilts v. United Group Services, LLC | green | “permitted wide latitude in their opinions, including those not based on firsthand knowledge, so long as the expert's opinion has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the discipline.” | 8 |
| 3 | Rodney Palatka v. Savage Arms, Inc. | green | “the trial judge has discretion in determining whether a proposed expert's testimony is admissible based on whether the testimony is both relevant and reliable.” | 7 |
| 4 | Brandy Andler v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc | green | “indeed, rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule-the gatekeeping function established by daubert was never intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.” | 5 |
| 5 | Daniels v. Erie Ins. Grp. | green | “merely because the factual bases for an expert's opinion are weak.” | 5 |
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.