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 25 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 Burgett v. Troy-Bilt LLC.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Burgett v. Troy-Bilt LLC Anchor | green | “to impinge on the role of the jury or opposing counsel.” | 9 |
| 2 | Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co. | green | “the trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.” | 8 |
| 3 | United States v. Peter Kevin Langan | green | “such factors as testing, peer review, publication, error rates, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and general acceptance in the relevant scientific or technical community.” | 8 |
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.