Legal Opinion
Cummins Engine Co. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided December 21, 1999No. Slip Op. 98-138; Court 96-04-01274PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POGUE, Judge.
Defendant, the United States, moves for summary judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 56. Plaintiff, Cummins Engine Company (“Cummins”), opposes Defendant’s motion, asserting that summary judgment is not appropriate because genuine issues of material fact exist. Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)(1994).
Background
On December 5th and 28th of 1995, Plaintiff filed protests challenging the decision of the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to deny duty-free treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) to certain diesel engine crankshafts that…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. MenascheSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cummins Incorporated (Formerly Known as Cummins Engine Company) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- Cummins Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2005
- Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Neenah Foundry Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.