Weber v. Finker’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.3d 1379 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Relies on Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. · Whitney v. Robertson · Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. · Hill v. Duriron Co. · McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 1782 does not require that every document discovered be actually used in the foreign proceeding. Quite the opposite. Section 1782 expressly provides that the district court should grant discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[pjarties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense— including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents.... ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a Motion to Compel under § 1782 is a final, dispositive order because, although there is an ongoing action in a foreign tribunal, the Motion to Compel is the final order to be issued by the United States court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.