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.
17 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 6,364 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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Anchor | green | “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” | 1,941 |
| 2 | Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | green | “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” | 908 |
| 3 | Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael | green | “to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” | 905 |
| 4 | Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | green | “both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” | 884 |
| 5 | General Electric Co. v. Joiner | green | “a court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” | 460 |
| 6 | Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael | 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” | 444 |
| 7 | General Electric Co. v. Joiner | green | “nothing in either daubert or the federal rules of evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” | 442 |
| 8 | General Electric Co. v. Joiner | green | “conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another.” | 103 |
| 9 | Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc. And Turnkey Computer Systems, Inc. | green | “when, as here, the parties' experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert's testimony.” | 96 |
| 10 | Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. | green | “where the expert's opinion is based on insufficient information, the analysis is unreliable.” | 85 |
| 11 | Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | green | “the question of whether the expert is credible or the opinion is correct is generally a question for the fact finder, not the court.” | 31 |
| 12 | Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc., Formerly Known as Excel Corporation v. Cts Corporation | green | “it is common in technical fields for an expert to base an opinion in part on what a different expert believes on the basis of expert knowledge not possessed by the first expert.” | 28 |
| 13 | Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | green | “but where the methodology is reasonable and its data or evidence are sufficiently tied to the facts of the case, the gatekeeping role of the court is satisfied, and the inquiry on the correctness of the methodology and of the results produced thereunder belongs to the factfinder.” | 15 |
| 14 | Vectura Limited v. Glaxosmithkline LLC | green | “built-in apportionment effectively assumes that the negotiators of a comparable license settled on a royalty rate and royalty base combination embodying the value of the asserted patent.” | 8 |
| 15 | Vectura Limited v. Glaxosmithkline LLC | green | “that when a sufficiently comparable license is used as the basis for determining the appropriate royalty, further apportionment may not necessarily be required.” | 6 |
| 16 | Elbit Systems Land and C4i Ltd v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC | green | “use of actual past licenses and negotiations to inform the hypothetical negotiation does not 'require identity of circumstances.” | 5 |
| 17 | Vectura Limited v. Glaxosmithkline LLC | green | “that is because a damages theory that is dependent on a comparable license (or a comparable negotiation) may in some cases have 'built-in apportionment.” | 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.