Legal Opinion

Hartz Mountain Corp. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided September 1, 1995No. Court No. 91-12-00877PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum and Order

Goldberg, Judge:

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court exercises its jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1988).

Background

Plaintiff, the Hartz Mountain Corporation (“Hartz”), and defendant agree that this case involves the proper tariff classification of the following merchandise: (1) a molded toy “Dog Bone”; (2) a “Refillable Catnip Punching Ball”; (3) a “Seed Tree with Holder,” for use by indoor or outdoor birds; (4) a clear tube called a “Hamster & Gerbil Tunnel,” for use in certain hamster and gerbil…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  3. Lynteq, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
  4. United States v. Carborundum Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
  5. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Minnetonka Brands, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
  2. GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API