Armstrong Rubber Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Int'l Trade 519
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Armstrong Rubber Co. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 614 F. Supp. 1252
United States Court of International Trade·Decided October 18, 1985·No. Court No. 84-10-01444·Published

Opinion

Watson, Judge:

This motion for a stay pending appeal raises the same issues as were recently discussed in American Grape Growers Alliance v. United States, 9 CIT 505, Slip Op. 85-104 (Oct. 7, 1985).

Here too, the Court finds that there is a fair possibility of damage to plaintiffs from the granting of a stay, in terms of the continued deprivation of an administrative investigation into their alleged injury. There is no comparable harm to anyone else, and a strong public interest in the uninterrupted progress of these investigations.

For these reasons, the motion for a stay is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Armstrong Rubber Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 519 (cit 1985).

9 Ct. Int'l Trade 519 (Armstrong Rubber Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.