Legal Opinion · Dissent

Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided May 8, 2013No. 2012-1411Published

1DissentDyk, Circuit Judge

This appeal requires us to determine whether the phrase “footwear of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners,” in subheading 6404.19.35 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), covers boots that rise above the ankle and that must be pulled on using the hands. The majority interprets the subheading as covering any footwear “that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners.” I respectfully disagree. If Congress had meant for this subheading to cover all such footwear, it could…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
  4. Swan v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. Arthur L. Franklin (Doing Business as Health Technologies Network) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API