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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 40 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 Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc. Anchor | green | “the party seeking reimbursement of its expert witness fees has the burden of demonstrating to the court that the expert's rate and fee are reasonable.” | 10 |
| 2 | Mannarino v. United States | green | “it is simply not reasonable to require parties in every case to pay the same amount regardless of the actual 'services rendered' or 'time spent complying with the requested discovery.” | 10 |
| 3 | Massasoit v. Carter | green | “a flat fee does raise a red flag with respect to whether expert fees are reasonable, and requires the court to closely scrutinize the situation” | 10 |
| 4 | Anthony v. Abbott Laboratories | green | “some reasonable relationship between the services rendered and the remuneration to which an expert is entitled.” | 10 |
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.