Maas v. United States

Customs and Patent Appeals

Maas v. United States

496 F.2d 1233, 61 C.C.P.A. 56

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 1974

DocketCA 74-11; CA 74-12; C.A.D. 1119

StatusPublished

This text of 496 F.2d 1233 (Maas v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maas v. United States, 496 F.2d 1233, 61 C.C.P.A. 56 (ccpa 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, Judge.

Although separate transcripts of the record and separate briefs were filed, the above appeals were joined for oral argument and will .be disposed of in a single opinion.

Each appeal is from an order of the Customs Court denying ^appellants’ motion for rehearing and vacating and setting aside separate orders of dismissal for lack of prosecution of the above cases and ■also in numerous other cases listed on a schedule recited as being annexed to said order. The schedules annexed to the motions are not shown, as such, in the transcript, but a separate schedule of cases is attached to the order and is certified by the clerk of the Customs Court to be identical to that, recited as annexed to the motion. Each transcript also includes a certificate of similarity from the clerk of the Customs Court, stating that the order of dismissal in the captioned action is typical of the other orders of dismissal entered in all ¡actions covered by the appeal.

The essential facts and issues involved herein are identical to those in the consolidated appeals in Reynold Trading Corp. et al. v. United States, CA 74-1 through 74-6, decided this date, and our opinion there is controlling here.

Appellee’s ¡argument for dismissal is rejected and the orders of the Customs Court denying appellants’ motions for rehearing and vacating and setting aside separate orders of dismissal for lack of prosecution are affirmed.

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

Miller, Judge.

Although separate transcripts of the record and separate briefs were filed, the above appeals were joined for oral argument and will .be disposed of in a single opinion.

Each appeal is from an order of the Customs Court denying ^appellants’ motion for rehearing and vacating and setting aside separate orders of dismissal for lack of prosecution of the above cases and ■also in numerous other cases listed on a schedule recited as being annexed to said order. The schedules annexed to the motions are not shown, as such, in the transcript, but a separate schedule of cases is attached to the order and is certified by the clerk of the Customs Court to be identical to that, recited as annexed to the motion. Each transcript also includes a certificate of similarity from the clerk of the Customs Court, stating that the order of dismissal in the captioned action is typical of the other orders of dismissal entered in all ¡actions covered by the appeal.

The essential facts and issues involved herein are identical to those in the consolidated appeals in Reynold Trading Corp. et al. v. United States, CA 74-1 through 74-6, decided this date, and our opinion there is controlling here.

Appellee’s ¡argument for dismissal is rejected and the orders of the Customs Court denying appellants’ motions for rehearing and vacating and setting aside separate orders of dismissal for lack of prosecution are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 1233, 61 C.C.P.A. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maas-v-united-states-ccpa-1974.