Mees v. Buiter’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.3d 291 · 2015
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Relies on Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. · Malev Hungarian Airlines v. United Technologies International Inc. · Euromepa v. Esmerian, Inc. · Application of Gianoli Aldunate Foden v. Gianoli Aldunate · Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether "the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding," in which event "the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the matter arising abroad"; (2) "the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance"; (3) "whether the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States"; and (4) whether the request is "unduly intrusive or burdensome."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'unduly intrusive or burdensome.' " Kiobel , 895 F.3d at 244 (quoting Intel , 542 U.S. at 264 -65 , 124 S.Ct. 2466 ). The Second Circuit has held that "a district court evaluating a § 1782 discovery request should assess whether the discovery sought is overbroad or unduly burdensome by applying the familiar standards of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the person from whom discovery is sought resides (or is found) in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) the discovery is for use in a foreign proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) the application is made by a foreign or international tribunal or any interested person.”
2 later decisions 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.