Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Dynamic Supply Inc. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided May 9, 1983No. Court No. 83-3-00422Published

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood (Jonathan W. Miller and David B. Howorth) for the plaintiff-intervenor. David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch (David A. Lafer) for the defendants. Mandel & Grunfeld (James A. Resti and Irving Mandel) for the defendant-interve-nor. Boe, Judge:

In 1981 the plaintiff-intervenor retained the law firm of Mandel & Grunfeld, defendant-intervenor, to file protests relating to the classification of certain solid-state digital watch modules. The plaintiff-intervenor agreed in writing at that time to pay contingent fees…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. VoigtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. S. J. Stile Associates Ltd. v. SnyderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
  4. Lindahl King v. Saddleback Junior College DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  5. United States v. Texas Instruments, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API