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.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 92 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 | 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 |
| 5 | 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 |
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.