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 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 United States v. James Smithers.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. James Smithers Anchor | green | “(1) that the witness, a qualified expert, (2) was testifying to a proper subject, (3) which conformed to a generally accepted explanatory theory, and (4) the probative value of the testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect.” | 15 |
| 2 | United States v. Martinez | green | “must examine the expert witness's testimony for reliability and relevance.” | 4 |
| 3 | Floyd Gene Bridger v. Union Railway Company | green | “requires an ad hoc determination, predicated upon the probable value of the witness's testimony in relation to the intricacies of the particular lawsuit.” | 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.