Wiegand v. Bachus

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the Second Circuit \and the Supreme Court have declined to read into [ Section 1782 ] requirements that are not rooted in its text.\
• “seeking discovery to prove one’s claim” in a pending proceeding “satisfies the ‘for use’ requirement”
• “in several other contexts we and the Supreme Court have declined to read into [Section 1782] requirements that are not rooted in its text”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).