International Judicial Assistance for the Federative Republic of Brazil General Universal Trading Corporation v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York W’s Empirical Analysis
936 F.2d 702 · 1991
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (2004), Esses v. Hanania (1996)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Relies on California v. ARC America Corp. · Smithson v. United States · Request for Assistance from Ministry of Legal Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago Azar · In re Letters Rogatory Issued by Director of Inspection of Government of India · Letter of Request from Crown Prosecution Service of United Kingdom
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we think it prudent . .. to require that adjudicative proceedings be imminent--very likely to occur and very soon to occur”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) (emphasis added); In re Request for International Judicial Assistance (Letter Rogatory) for the Federative Republic of Brazil, 936 F.2d 702 , 706 (2d Cir. 1991) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“such a proceeding is imminent, i.e., very likely to occur within a brief interval from the request”
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.