7 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 83 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 Shannon Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., Third Party v. Foley-Martens Company, Also Known as Foley-Belsaw Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shannon Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., Third Party v. Foley-Martens Company, Also Known as Foley-Belsaw Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party Anchor | green | “there is no single requirement for admissibility as long as the proffer indicates that the expert evidence is reliable and relevant.” | 18 |
| 2 | Shannon Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., Third Party v. Foley-Martens Company, Also Known as Foley-Belsaw Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party | green | “this evidentiary inquiry is meant to be flexible and fact specific, and a court should use, adapt, or reject daubert factors as the particular case demands.” | 16 |
| 3 | Clark v. Heidrick | green | “doubts regarding whether an expert's testimony will be useful should generally be resolved in favor of admissibility.” | 13 |
| 4 | Clark v. Heidrick | green | “whether an expert's testimony will be useful should generally be resolved in favor of admissibility.” | 11 |
| 5 | Shannon Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., Third Party v. Foley-Martens Company, Also Known as Foley-Belsaw Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party | green | “no single requirement for admissibility” | 9 |
| 6 | Randy Russell v. Whirlpool Corp. | green | “when making the reliability and relevancy determinations, a district court may consider: (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether the theory or technique has a…” | 9 |
| 7 | Randy Russell v. Whirlpool Corp. | green | “(1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether the theory or technique has a known or potential error rate and standards controlling the technique's operation; and (…” | 7 |
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.