Legal Opinion
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.
United States Court of International Trade
Decided October 19, 2006No. Slip Op. 06-156; Court 04-00650PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion & Order
CARMAN, Judge.
This matter is before this Court on Defendant’s Motion to Amend and Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay of the Proceeding Pending Appeal (“Defendant’s Motion to Certify”). Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to Certify in Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend and Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay of the Proceeding Pending Appeal (“Plaintiffs Response”). Thereafter, Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Amendment and Certification…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- TRW Inc. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Reno v. KoraySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- James R. Ahrenholz, Plaintiff-Appellee/respondent v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Defendant-Appellant/petitionerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- In Re Cement Antitrust Litigation (Mdl No. 296). State of Arizona v. Ideal Basic Industries, State of Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, Real Parties in Interest. State of Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2010
- United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2008
- United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2007