Legal Opinion

Union Fork & Hoe Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 9, 1936No. 3974PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge

On June 18, 1930, Senate Resolution No. 295 was adopted by the Senate. 11 was as follows:

Resolved, That the Tariff Commission is hereby directed to investigate the differences in the cost of production between the domestic article and foreign article and to report upon the earliest date practicable upon the following articles: Shoes, both men’s and women’s shoes; furniture; bells; wire fencing; wire netting; cement; hose; shovels; spades; scoops; forks; rakes; scythes; sickles; grass hooks; corn knives; and drainage tools.

This request is made under and by virtue of section 336, and the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Hampton v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  4. United States v. SanchezCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. United States v. SchoonmakerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Texas · 1899

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. David L. Moss Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
  2. David L. Moss Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API