Legal Opinion

Quigley & Manard, Inc. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 30, 1974No. 74-8; 74-15; C.A.D. 1121PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MilleR, Judge.

This proceeding involves two appeals from the United States Customs Court. The appeals are from (1) separate orders of dismissal of the actions for lack of prosecution, and (2) an order (covering both cases) which (a) denied appellant’s motion for rehearing to set aside said separate orders of dismissal1 and (b) denied appellant’s motion for rehearing to set aside an order denying appellant’s motion to compel the clerk of the Customs Court to file appellant’s complaint (covering both actions) and to remove the actions from the reserve file of the Customs Court. We affirm.

Each…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  2. The United States v. Chas. Kurz Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  3. Applied Research Laboratories v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  4. Applied Research Laboratories v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. United States v. Gold Mountain Coffee, Ltd.United States Court of International Trade · 1984
  2. Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
  3. Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2001
  4. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
  5. United States v. Torch Manufacturing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975

17 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