Legal Opinion
United States v. Rodrigue
United States Court of International Trade
Decided October 1, 2009No. Slip Op. 09-108; Court 08-00177PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RIDGWAY, Judge.
In this action, the Government seeks to collect civil penalties, plus interest and costs, imposed on the Defendants for allegedly transacting customs business without a valid broker’s license.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time, which the Government filed nunc pro tunc. See Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Nunc Pro Tunc Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time; Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time (“Pl.’s Motion for Extension of Time”). 1 In its Motion for an Extension of Time, the Government seeks a 90-day enlargement of the…
2Cases cited71 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- David Petrucelli Tracy A. Petrucelli, Husband and Wife v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, Gmbh Ausdereitungsanlagen Jake Diel Construction MacHine Inc. Teco Electric and MacHine Company, Ltd. v. Excel Recycling & Manufacturing, Inc., Third-Party David Petrucelli and Tracy A. PetrucelliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International InterlinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Jones v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. ZatkovaUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
- United States v. HoUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020
- United States v. HoUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020
- United States v. Wilfran Agricultural Industries, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2010