In Re Microsoft Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[Section] 1782 does not 27 authorize discovery of documents held abroad.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Heraeus Kulzer GmbH v. Biomet, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2011-01-24· cited 60×
• Ecuadorian v. Chevron Corp.
  Fifth Circuit· 2010-09-08· cited 43×
• In Re Veiga
  District of Columbia· 2010-10-20· cited 31×
• In Re Chevron Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2010-11-10· cited 30×
• In re del Valle Ruiz
  Second Circuit· 2019-10-07· cited 29×
• In Re Application of Chevron Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2010-05-20· cited 21×
• In re Lazaridis
  D. New Jersey· 2011-09-01· cited 21×
• In re Qualcomm Inc.
  N.D. California· 2016-02-18· cited 15×
• In Re Godfrey
  S.D. New York· 2007-11-30· cited 14×
• In Re Order for Labor Court of Brazil
  N.D. Illinois· 2006-12-06· cited 5×
• In re Hulley Enters., Ltd.
  S.D. Illinois· 2019-02-19· cited 4×
• In Re Hansainvest Hanseatische Investment-Gmbh
  S.D. Illinois· 2018-12-17· cited 3×
• Fleischmann v. Mortari
  N.D. Illinois· 2006-12-06· cited 3×
• In re 000 Promneftstroy
  S.D. New York· 2015-10-02· cited 1×
• In re Mesa Power Group, LLC
  S.D. Florida· 2012-07-13· cited 1×
• In Re: Application to Issue a Subpoena for the Taking of a Deposition and the Production of Documents for Use in a Foreign Proceeding
  District of Columbia· 2010-10-20
• In re Barnwell Enterprises Ltd.
  D.C. Circuit· 2017-07-13