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 7 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 Swallow v. Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Swallow v. Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A. Anchor | green | “the foundation for the admission of opinion testimony based upon scientific knowledge includes both that the witness is an expert in the field and that there is a scientific basis for the expert's opinion.” | 4 |
| 2 | Brauner v. AHC of Boise | green | “this means that courts must review both 'the expert's qualifications and the records relied upon by the expert to determine whether the expert can establish the necessary foundation.” | 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.