Fuchs Shoe Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Fuchs Shoe Corp. v. United States

22 Cust. Ct. 338, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1712

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 25, 1949

DocketNo. 53250; protest 139906-K/12984 (New Orleans)

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 Cust. Ct. 338 (Fuchs Shoe Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuchs Shoe Corp. v. United States, 22 Cust. Ct. 338, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1712 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

dissenting opinion

Cole, Judge:

The action of the majority, restoring this case to the New Orleans calendar, is directly opposite to my views, as expressed in the memorandum accompanying order issued on May 23, 1949, in the matter of Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States (22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), wherein a condition in line with the present situation was submitted to the court.

Following my reasoning in the cited case, I respectfully dissent from the procedure invoked by the maj ority. I do so entirely on the belief that the first division has no jurisdiction in this case, which was submitted by order of a single judge on [339]*339circuit, acting under valid authorization issued by the chief judge pursuant to law, section 518 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1518), now 28 U. S. C. 1948 ed. chapter 11, § 254.

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

dissenting opinion

Cole, Judge:

The action of the majority, restoring this case to the New Orleans calendar, is directly opposite to my views, as expressed in the memorandum accompanying order issued on May 23, 1949, in the matter of Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States (22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), wherein a condition in line with the present situation was submitted to the court.

Following my reasoning in the cited case, I respectfully dissent from the procedure invoked by the maj ority. I do so entirely on the belief that the first division has no jurisdiction in this case, which was submitted by order of a single judge on [339]*339circuit, acting under valid authorization issued by the chief judge pursuant to law, section 518 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1518), now 28 U. S. C. 1948 ed. chapter 11, § 254.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Cust. Ct. 338, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuchs-shoe-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack