Hyundai America, Inc. v. Meissner & Wurst GmbH & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 27 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”
• “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 27 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”
• “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 27 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”
• “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes 27 that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”
• “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 27 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”
• “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 27 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).