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.
2 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 Seaman v. Seacor Marine L.L.C..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Seaman v. Seacor Marine L.L.C. Anchor | green | “a plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation.” | 20 |
| 2 | Louis E. Wright etc. v. Willamette Ind. | green | “while courts 'do not require a mathematically precise table equating levels of exposure with levels of harm . . . there must be evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that a defendant's emission has probably caused a particular plaintiff the kind of harm of which…” | 12 |
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.