Legal Opinion

Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided February 16, 1995No. Slip Op. 95-25. Court No. 94-10-00613PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DiCARLO, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff, Florsheim Shoe Company, challenges the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s denial of entry of elk skin shoes imported by Florsheim from Taiwan. The basis for the denial was a Presidential prohibition, issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 1978 (Supp. V 1993), the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act of 1967. Florsheim contends the shoes fall outside of the prohibition. Pursuant to USCIT R. 56, Florsheim, and defendant United States, bring cross-motions for summary judgment. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(3) (Supp. V…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Crandon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
  5. Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Native Federation of the Madre De Dios River v. Bozovich Timber Products, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API