11 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 86 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 Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. Anchor | green | “the district court is not tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury.” | 22 |
| 2 | Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. | green | “shaky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion.” | 15 |
| 3 | Joan Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, and the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company Unumprovident Corp. | green | “the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination.” | 10 |
| 4 | City of Pomona v. Sqm North America Corporation | green | “shaky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion.” | 7 |
| 5 | Children's Broadcasting Corporation v. The Walt Disney Company | green | “only if the expert's opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury must such testimony be excluded.” | 6 |
| 6 | City of Pomona v. Sqm North America Corporation | green | “the district court is not tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury.” | 6 |
| 7 | Russell v. Deere & Co. | green | “a plaintiff may not rely on the bare assertion of a defect from which a jury may infer unreasonable dangerousness; rather, a party must affirmatively put forth some evidence on the issue of dangerousness before the issue may properly be submitted to a jury.” | 5 |
| 8 | United States v. Jorge Alberto Alatorre | green | “the trial court must have the same kind of latitude in deciding how to test an expert's reliability, and to decide whether and when special briefing or other proceedings are needed to investigate reliability, as it enjoys when it decides whether or not that expert's relevant tes…” | 4 |
| 9 | Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation | green | “factors identified in daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” | 4 |
| 10 | McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp. | green | “prove that, when the product left the defendant's hands, the product was defective and dangerous to an extent beyond that which the ordinary consumer would have expected.” | 4 |
| 11 | Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation | green | “is a flexible one,' and the 'factors identified in daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” | 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.