IN RE PEARSON; AND IN RE CASIANO

Citator

Cited By

• Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004)
  …Ibid,.; see Order Vacating Hearing Date, No. C 01-7033 MISC JW (ND Cal., Dec. 1, 2003) (stating “Intel may renotice its motion for de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s decision after the Supreme Court issues its ruling”). We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1003 (2003), in view of the division among the Circuits on the question whether § 1782(a) contains a foreign-discoverability requirement.7 We now hold that § 1782(a) does not impose such a requirement. We also granted review on two other questions. First…
• Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2004)
  …(CADC 2003) (quoting Eisentmger, 339 U. S., at 777-778), it held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over petitioners’ ha-beas- actions, as well as their remaining federal statutory claims that do not sound in habeas. We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1003 (2003), and now reverse. II Congress has granted federal district courts, “within their respective jurisdictions,” the authority to hear applications for habeas corpus by any person who claims to be held “in custody in violation of the Constitutio…