7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 24 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 Jimenez v. City of Chicago.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jimenez v. City of Chicago Anchor | green | “in constitutional tort cases, expert testimony regarding sound professional standards governing a defendant's actions can be relevant and helpful.” | 5 |
| 2 | Rachael Schmees v. HC1.com, Inc. | green | “a district court retains discretion to treat new claims presented for the first time in briefing as a constructive motion to amend.” | 4 |
| 3 | BRC Rubber & Plastics, Incorpo v. Continental Carbon Company | green | “although a plaintiff generally can alter the legal theories asserted in its complaint, it cannot alter 'the fac- tual basis of its complaint at summary judgment.” | 3 |
| 4 | John Evans v. Susan Griffin | green | “when a witness repeatedly contradicts himself under oath on material matters ... the witness's credibility becomes an issue for the jury; it cannot be resolved in a summary judgment proceeding.” | 3 |
| 5 | Tyler Kirk v. Clark Equipment Company | green | “if the court correctly 'applied the rule 702/daubert framework, we review its decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Adame | green | “we will not disturb the district court's findings unless they are manifestly erroneous.” | 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.