Legal Opinion
Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States Customs & Border Protection
United States Court of International Trade
Decided August 19, 2005No. Slip Op. 05-99; Court 04-00027Published
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
BARZILAY, Judge:
[Proposed Defendant-intervenors’ Motion to Intervene granted.]
Proposed defendant-intervenors, Mus-grave Pencil Company, RoseMoon Pencil Company and General Pencil Company (collectively “movants”) seek leave to intervene as defendants in this case. Plaintiff Dixon Ticonderoga (“Dixon”) opposes this motion and defendants, United States Customs and Border Protection and Robert C. Bonner (collectively “defendant”) consent.
On April 4, 2005, this court issued Slip Opinion 05^16, holding that Customs’ denial of Dixon’s application for distributions under the Continued…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- William E. Nuesse, Commissioner of Banks, State of Wisconsin v. William Camp, Comptroller of the CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
- McDonald v. E. J. Lavino Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Maudra NEVILLES Et Al., Appellants, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and Union Electric Company, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
- Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.