Hartz Mountain Corp. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
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
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Lynteq, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Carborundum Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Minnetonka Brands, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
- GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2016