Legal Opinion

Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided December 30, 1999No. Court 97-11-01973Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Restani, Judge:

This matter concerns plaintiffs’ application for attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to USCIT R. 68 and the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2412 (West Supp. 1999). Plaintiffs, Ferro Union and Asoma Corporation, Inc. (“Asoma”), allege that the position of defendant, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp.2d 1310 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999), and in Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,808 (Dep’t Commerce 1997) (final results of anti-dumping duty admin, rev.)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Ferro Union, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
  4. Borden, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
  5. Luciano Pisoni Fabbrica Accessori Instrumenti Musicali and Enzo Pizzi, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988

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

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

Powered by the Exa API