3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 32 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 Leonard Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leonard Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc. Anchor | green | “a daubert inquiry is not designed to have the district judge take the place of the jury to decide ultimate issues of credibility and accuracy.” | 20 |
| 2 | Leonard Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc. | green | “the proposed expert testimony meets the daubert threshold of relevance and reliability, the accuracy of the actual evidence is to be tested before the jury with the familiar tools of 'vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the b…” | 8 |
| 3 | Adam Hartman v. Ebsco Industries, Incorporated | green | “the rubric for evaluating the admissibility of expert evidence considers whether the expert was qualified, whether his methodology was scientifically reliable, and whether the testimony would have assisted the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining the fac…” | 4 |
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.