6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 21 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 Saks International, Inc. v. M/V \Export Champion\"".
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saks International, Inc. v. M/V \Export Champion\"" Anchor | green | “here is no requirement that the person whose first-hand knowledge was the basis of the entry be identified, so long as it was the business entity's regular practice to get information from such a person.” | 4 |
| 2 | Russell v. Perkins Ex Rel. International Management Associates, LLC | green | “as long as the trustee presented enough circumstantial evidence to establish the trustworthiness of the underlying documents, he did not need to present testimony from the person who actually prepared them; his own testimony would suffice.” | 4 |
| 3 | Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. | green | “rule 803(6) favors the admission of evidence rather than its exclusion if it has any probative value at all.” | 4 |
| 4 | Gibbs v. Cigna Corporation | green | “facts admitted in an answer . . . are judicial admissions that bind the defendant throughout litigation.” | 3 |
| 5 | Thakore v. Universal MacHine Co. of Pottstown, Inc. | green | “expert reports under rule 26 are not independently admissible. . . . it may be noted that the conference committee comments to the proposed amendments to rule 26 state that expert reports themselves are not admissible.” | 3 |
| 6 | Picard v. Estate (Succession) of Igoin (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) | green | “the withdrawal of the money to pay taxes the efendants never should have had to pay is not a defense to the fraudulent transfer claims.” | 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.