Legal Opinion
GPX International Tire Corp. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided May 18, 2015No. Consol. 08-00285PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
RESTANI, Judge:
The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) is attempting to collect cash deposits at a rate the court has already determined to be invalid. Consolidated plaintiff, Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (“TUTRIC”), brings the current motion for enforcement of the court’s judgment entered October 30, 2013, and argues that under either the court’s inherent power to enforce its judgments or through a writ of mandamus, the court should compel defendant, the United States, by and through its executive administrative agency, Commerce, to issue a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Michael Williamson v. Recovery Limited PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- The Timken Company v. The United States, and China National MacHinery and Equipment Import and Export CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- United States Steel Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Husteel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2016
- United States Steel Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2018
- United States Steel Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2018
- Transpacific Steel LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020
- Transpacific Steel LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.