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 45 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 Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Anchor | green | “when an expert opinion is not supported by sufficient facts to validate it in the eyes of the law, or when indisputable record facts contradict or otherwise render the opinion unreasonable, it cannot support a jury's verdict.” | 38 |
| 2 | Alisa Bradley and Ronald Bradley, Parents and Next Friends of Rachel Bradley v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services | green | “an expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.” | 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.