Case law

Mueller v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 40 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

It is claimed that the decisions in the following cases support the contention of appellants: Astor v. Merritt, 111 U. S. 202 ; Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U. S. 495 ; Schlesinger v. Beard, 120 U. S. 264 . … A. 1507, the Board of General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court) had under consideration paragraph 483 of the tariff act of 1890, the pertinent part of which read as follows: Pab. 483. * * * teams of animals, ingluding

In re Jardine

62 F.2d 194 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

Drey v. Peiler, 53 App. D. C. 35; In re Horton, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 871, 54 F. (2d) 961; In re Nicolson, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1468, 49 F. (2d) 961. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Jones

542 F.2d 65 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 23, 1976

Background In Patent Appeal No. 9158, we affirmed the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals in an unpublished opinion on May 9, 1974. The application contained no allowed claims. … See Continental Can Co. v. Schuyler, 326 F.Supp. 283 , 168 USPQ 625 (D.D.C.1970).

In re the Investigation of Alleged Unfair Methods of Competition & Unfair Acts

16 Ct. Cust. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1928

In Evans v. … When this court was created appeal was provided from the Board of General Appraisers to the United States Court of Customs Appeals, and no further.

United States v. Tower

17 C.C.P.A. 201 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

No applicable citations of authority on the questions involved herein were furnished by either the Government or the importer except the Government referred the court to Boker v. … United States, 168 Fed. 464 , which reversed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) and which decision only went to the effect that wire upon which a nickel coat was placed,

United States v. R. Hillier's Son Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 103 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1928

In Perry, Ryer & Co. v. … A new element is thus introduced into the paragraph which was not before the board in the case above cited, relating to like importations under the Act of 1894.

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1955

He stated his practical experience as follows: * * * When I graduated from the Navy I went into the active Navy on board ship. … D. 46038; Otis McAllister & Co. v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 4, C. A. D. 52; The Frost Railway Supply Co. v. United States, 39 C. C. P. A. (Customs). 90, C. A. D. 469; United States v.

United States v. R. C. Williams & Co.

40 C.C.P.A. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1953

v. … Reitmeyer et al., 11 F. (2d) 648; McClure v. United States, 48 Fed. Supp. 531.

United States v. S. B. Penick & Co.

24 C.C.P.A. 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

Owing to the character of the record and the issues decided in United States v. Chili Products Corp., supra, it is not thought that the decision in that case is controlling of our decision here. … In the Chili Products Corp. case, supra, we said: At the time paragraph 235 of the tariff act of 1913 was being formulated, the attention of the Congress was called to the decision of the Board of General Appraisers (now

Neuman & Schwiers Co. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 127 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1936

In the case of Bogle v. … Cadwalader v. Zeh, 151 U. S. 171, 176 .

Beaver Products Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 434 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1930

In the case of Mills & Gibb v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 31 , T. … In the case of Harry Zinberg v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 268, 271 , T.

United States v. Spreckels Creameries, Inc.

17 C.C.P.A. 400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1930

United States v. Swift & Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 222 , T. D. 41706; United States v. Redden, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 224 , T. D. 41177; Durbrow & Hearne v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 225 , T. … D. 40230; Brown & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 309 , T. D. 36871; Magone v. Heller, 150 U. S. 70 .

United States v. Judson-Sheldon Corp.

37 C.C.P.A. 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

Wherefore, the importation into the United States of cattle, sheep, or other domestic ruminants or swine (including the entry into any port of the United States of any vessel having on board as sea stores such animals from … United States v. Paul Puttmann, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 135, T. D. 46466; United States v. Yick Shew Tong Co., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 255, T. D. 49392.

Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. v. United States

39 C.C.P.A. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1951

Stern v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 124 , T. D. 32381, [ 22 Treas. Dec. 564 ]; Consmiller v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 298 , T. D. 32585, [ 22 Treas. Dec. 983 ]; United States v. Downing & Co., 6 Ct. … This court also cited there the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Merritt v. Tiffany, supra, and commented: * * * The effect of both these cases [Tutton v. Viti, supra, and Merritt v.

United States v. Johns-Manville Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

United States v. Ranlett & Stone ( 172 U. S., 133 -147); United States v. Water-house (1 Ct. cust. Appls., 353-359; T. D. 31452); United States v. Strauss & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 180 -182; T. D. 32464, 3 Ct. Cust. … A concise exposition of these facts is set forth in King et al. v. Smith ( 14 Fed.

United States v. Rote

22 C.C.P.A. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 29, 1934

In the leading case of United States v. Olivotti & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 46 , T. … This language was construed by this court in the case of Wells, Fargo & Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 125 , T.

United States v. Globe Shipping Co.

19 C.C.P.A. 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1931

That section further provides that “a protest may be amended at any time prior to the first docket call thereof,” under such rules as may be prescribed by the Board of General Appraisers (now the court below) and in its discretion … United *151 States v. Sheldon & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 427 , T. D. 34946, and cases therein cited; section 514, supra.

United States v. Kaufman & Vinson Co.

47 C.C.P.A. 8 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 10, 1959

These are the decisions below: (1) In Cribari ds Sons v. United, States, 1 Cust. … SChnier & Co. v. United States, 15 Cust. Ct. 294 , Abs.

United States v. L. Oppleman, Inc.

25 C.C.P.A. 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 1, 1937

United States, supra, United States v. Alexander McNab, 21 *171 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 406, T. D. 46928, and United States v. Race Co., supra. In tbe case of United States v. … They are somewhat like weighing or computing scales which are clearly machines, and were held to be dutiable as such under *172 paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1922 by the Board of General Appraisers (now United States

Park & Tilford Import Corp. v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 369 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1936

A similar rule was also announced and approved in the following-cases: Levy v. Michon Bros., 77 So. 644 ; American Tobacco Co. v. Strickling, 41 A. 1083, 1086 ; Yerkes v. Board of Sup’rs., 117 A. 772, 775 ; Smithie v. … State, 101 So. 276 ; Roettger v. Riefkin, 113 S. W. 88 ;. In re Marcellino, 171 N. E. 81 ; Campfield v. Cook, 52 N. W. 1031 ; State v. Gandy, 70 S. E. 163 ; Minor v. McDonald, 140 S.