Legal Opinion
Ethan Allen Global, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided January 20, 2012No. Slip Op. 12-11; Court 08-00302PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STANCEU, Judge:
This case arose from the actions of two agencies, the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC” or the “Commission”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), that denied plaintiffs Ethan Allen Global, Inc. and Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. (collectively, “Ethan Allen”) certain monetary benefits under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA” or “Byrd Amendment”), Pub.L. No. 106-387, §§ 1001-03, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-72-75 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (2000)), 1 repealed by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171, § 7601(a), 120…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- United States v. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Am. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- The Barden Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2014
- Ashley Furniture Industries v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.