10 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 124 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 Nikitas Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nikitas Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Anchor | green | “in deciding whether a step in an expert's analysis is unreliable, the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and method…” | 29 |
| 2 | United States v. Tin Yat Chin, AKA Tan C. Dau | green | “to determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert, courts compare the area in which the witness has superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill with the subject matter of the proffered testimony.” | 26 |
| 3 | Nikitas Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation | green | “a minor flaw in an expert's reasoning or a slight modification of an otherwise reliable method will not render an expert's opinion per se inadmissible.” | 24 |
| 4 | Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. | green | “an expert opinion requires some explanation as to how the expert came to his conclusion and what methodologies or evidence substantiate that conclusion.” | 19 |
| 5 | United States v. Eric Mulder | green | “directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help.” | 7 |
| 6 | United States v. Tin Yat Chin, AKA Tan C. Dau | green | “compare the area in which the witness has superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill with the subject matter of the proffered testimony.” | 6 |
| 7 | Vale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons | green | “qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to render his or her opinions as an expert” | 4 |
| 8 | Tardif v. City of N.Y. | green | “if an expert has educational and experiential qualifications in a general field closely related to the subject matter in question, the court will not exclude the testimony solely on the ground that the witness lacks expertise in the specialized areas that are directly pertinent.” | 4 |
| 9 | Houser v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. | green | “in determining whether an expert's opinion should be excluded as unreliable, 'the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the fact…” | 3 |
| 10 | Vale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons | green | “as a threshold matter, trial courts must consider whether the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to render his or her opinions as an expert, before reaching an analysis of the testimony itself.” | 2 |
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.