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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 9 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 Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec Anchor | green | “despite the court's ability to exercise broad discretion and flexibility when determining the admissibility of expert testimony, the court must balance this discretion with the concerns of rule 403 to ensure that the probative value of the proffered testimony is not 'substantial…” | 6 |
| 2 | United States v. Gastiaburo | green | “the trial judge has broad discretion under rule 702.” | 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.