Porter v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Landis, Judge:
This classification case arises on cross-motions by the parties for summary judgment filed pursuant to rule 8.2.
*260Defendant has stated in its brief that “it concurs with plaintiff’s statement of material facts” and it appearing to the court that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact, a summary judgment should be rendered in favor of the party entitled thereto upon the question of law raised by the parties.
The merchandise in issue is transverse 1 rapid transit seats used exclusively in San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail vehicles. The seats were classified…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Mattel, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- United States v. Abbey RentsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
- Karoware, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lynteq, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- United States v. PorterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Lynteq, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1991
- Porter v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1980
- Bestfoods v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.