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 Roger Murray v. S. Route Maritime Sa.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Roger Murray v. S. Route Maritime Sa Anchor | green | “(1) whether the theory can be and has been tested, (2) whether the theory has been peer reviewed and published, (3) what the theory's known or potential error rate is, and (4) whether the theory enjoys general acceptance in the applicable scientific community.” | 5 |
| 2 | United States v. Enrique Valencia-Lopez | green | “ensure that the testimony is both relevant and reliable” | 5 |
| 3 | Moses v. Payne | green | “under rule 702, expert testimony is helpful to the jury if it concerns matters beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson and is not misleading.” | 4 |
| 4 | Linda Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. | green | “expert opinion testimony is relevant if the knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry.” | 4 |
| 5 | Roger Murray v. S. Route Maritime Sa | green | “identified four factors that may bear on the analysis: (1) whether the theory can be and has been tested, (2) whether the theory has been peer reviewed and published, (3) what the theory's known or potential error rate is, and (4) whether the theory enjoys general acceptance in …” | 4 |
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.