Legal Opinion

Rink v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 11, 1928No. 3022PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal is represented by collective Exhibit No. 1, protest No. 168378-G; Exhibit No. 1, protest No. 168842-G, which represents an Italian leather; and the official sample in protest No. 168842-G, which represents an Austrian leather. The exhibits, including the official sample, consist of five pieces of sheepskin leather. They differ in size, shape, and design; but, after having been cut from leather in the russet condition to a size and form to accommodate a particular design, each has been not only embossed, but more elaborately decorated by the addition of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Tide Water Oil Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Worthington v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. Ishimitsu v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  5. United States v. DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1899

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Brand v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  2. Finn Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  3. Friedman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  4. American Import Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
  5. Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946

16 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