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 30 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 In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation Anchor | green | “eschewed imposing overly rigorous requirements of expertise and has been satisfied with more generalized qualifications.” | 16 |
| 2 | Pineda v. Ford Motor Co. | green | “an expert's testimony is admissible so long as the process or technique the expert used in formulating the opinion is reliable.” | 11 |
| 3 | Rose v. Truck Centers, Inc. | green | “the issue with regard to expert testimony is not the qualifications of a witness in the abstract, but whether those qualifications provide a foundation for a witness to answer a specific question.” | 3 |
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.