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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 22 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 Rivera-Marrero v. Presbyterian Community Hospital.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rivera-Marrero v. Presbyterian Community Hospital Anchor | green | “expert-related disclosures are insufficient when they consist of sketchy and vague descriptions of anticipated opinions or areas of anticipated testimony.” | 7 |
| 2 | Santiago-Díaz v. Laboratorio Clínico Y De Referencia Del Este | green | “make explicit and detailed expert disclosures” | 5 |
| 3 | Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. | green | “all of the opinions that the expert will express at trial and the reasons for them.” | 4 |
| 4 | Carrozza v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. | green | “an expert's proffered testimony 'both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” | 3 |
| 5 | Rivera-Marrero v. Presbyterian Community Hospital | green | “expert-related disclosures are insufficient when they consist of 'sketchy and vague descriptions of anticipated opinions or areas of anticipated testimony.” | 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.