3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 11 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 Hickman v. Fruehauf Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hickman v. Fruehauf Corp. Anchor | green | “provides sufficient notice of the expert's theory to enable the opposing party to prepare a rebuttal witness.” | 5 |
| 2 | Trent v. Trotman | green | “whether there has been surprise or prejudice to the party which is opposing the proffered testimony of the expert, based upon any alleged deviation between the matters disclosed during discovery, and the testimony of such expert at trial.” | 3 |
| 3 | AUGUSTINE BY AUGUSTINE v. Delgado | green | “what constitutes surprise and prejudice, however, depends upon the pre-trial particulars of each case.” | 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.