I like both of these Daubert research web sites.

Both of these sites give you an efficient way of zeroing in our your jurisdiction and its rules regarding the admissibility of expert testimony. Your particular needs and tastes may tell you that one is better than the other for you.  You can see my preference in the comments.

The Daubert Tracker.  MDEX Online has a service ("The Daubert Tracker ") that tracks all Daubert style cases and allows you to research particular jurisdictions and even particular experts.  It would be the preferred way to research a particular expert. One feature of great advantage is the quick way it provides to look at the docket sheet of relevant cases and order documents you can use in your own case.

To my way of thinking, The Daubert Tracker is geared to persons using medical experts, as it should be, for a company that is grounded on medical-legal experts.   It also is geared to the person in a teaching environment, which reflects the fact that it enlists several professors on its team.

DaubertOnTheWeb is another online service that tracks Daubert style cases. Click here for its version of telling a lawyer what he/she needs to know.  It is the "fast and easy" site to navigate. It does not have the depth and resources of The Daubert Tracker in getting details of the cases.  I do expert testimony work in 15 states. It is  my the preferred way to learn Daubert law and apply it to my case.  If you are a busy trial lawyer, use it.  It has links to lots of other relevant source materials.  We do contribute to it.

Because of the fact that the large percentage of appellate Daubert cases focus on scientific evidence, it is inevitable that the web sites such as the above provide more help to those involved with scientific evidence then with non-scientific evidence.  That is not to say that it is a fault of these sites.  It is to say that if you have non-scientific evidence, your thinking as lawyer or an expert needs to be devoted, in part, to making value judgments be phrased in terms of coming from an inductive or deductive reasoning, and not on mere intuitive general leaps.