Legal Opinion
United States v. Bruckmann
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided August 17, 1978No. 77-26 & 77-30PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, Judge.
The United States appeals from the order of the Customs Court, 78 Cust, Ct. 155, C.D. 4702, 435 F. Supp. 1219 (1977), granting plaintiff’s (hereinafter Bruckmann) cross-motion for summary judgment on the basis of its holding that incandescent gas lamp parts ¡are properly classified under item 653.30, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) rather than under residual item 653.39, TSUS. We reverse.
Bruckmann cross-appeals from the holding of the Customs Court ■that the cast iron “stems” or support posts of the lamps are not properly classified as “columns, pillars, or posts”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- United States v. SchoverlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Laurence Myers Scaffolding Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Robertson v. GerdanSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Lynteq, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Beloit Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1994
- S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
- Chevron Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
- Commercial Aluminum Cookware Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1996
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.