Esses v. Hanania’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.3d 873 · 1996
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (2004), Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (2004)
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In re Letters Rogatory Issued by Director of Inspection of Government of India · Malev Hungarian Airlines v. United Technologies International Inc. · Euromepa v. Esmerian, Inc. · John Deere Limited v. Sperry Corporation · Application of Gianoli Aldunate Foden v. Gianoli Aldunate
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) that the person from whom discovery is sought reside (or be found) in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) that the discovery be for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) that the application be made by a foreign or international tribunal or ‘any interested person.’ ””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.... To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edelman v. Taittinger · No. 97-5047
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.