Legal Opinion
Cricket Hosiery, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided April 24, 2006No. Slip Op. 06-56; Court 03-00553PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MUSGRAVE, Judge.
Before the Court are defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record and defendant-interve-nors’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Judgment on the Agency Record. By their motions these parties seek the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) in its entirety. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2000). See Cricket Hosiery, Inc. v. United States, 26 CIT -, 2004 WL 1376402 (2004) (2004) (“Cricket I”) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- Action Glove Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Action Glove Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Beniko, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.