Legal Opinion

Kleinberger v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 4, 1925No. 2460PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Geaham, Presiding Judge,

delivered tlie opinion of the court:

The articles of importation here are pieces of leather hereinafter more particularly described. They were classified for duty by the collector as manufactures of leather not specially provided for under paragraph 1432 of the tariff act of 1922, which, so far as relevant, is as follows:

1432. Bags, baskets, belts, satchels, cardcases, pocketbooks, jewel boxes, portfolios, and other boxes and cases, not jewelry, wholly or in chief value of leather or parchment, and moccasins, and manufactures of leather, rawhide, or parchment or of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Ishimitsu v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  4. United States v. DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  5. Fenton v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Rink v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. Smith v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  3. United States v. State Forwarding & Shipping Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961

8 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