In re the Marriage of McKillop

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the district court was correct in dismissing the [Section 1782 application] as moot because at that time there were no foreign proceedings, within the meaning of the statute, in which the discovery could be used”
• noting that a district court may take judicial notice “of its own 27 records, either at the behest of the defendant or sua sponte”
• “We review . . . factual findings in contempt proceedings for clear error.”
• “To receive Rule 60(b)(6) relief, a moving party must show both injury and that circumstances beyond 27 [his or her] control prevented timely action to protect [his or her] interests.”
• questions of foreign law are questions of law, not of fact
• specifically applying these principles to fee requests under the EAJA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).