United States v. Riga
171 F. 783, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5651
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts·Decided June 11, 1909·No. No. 537 (2,040)·Published·Cited by 16 cases
Opinion
The ‘decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the Board in its opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Riga, 171 F. 783, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5651 (circtdma 1909).
171 F. 783 (United States v. Riga) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Acme Shear Co. v. United States
524 F.2d 1212 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 7 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 615 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Reynolds Corp. v. United States
53 Cust. Ct. 11 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
Herman D. Steel Co. v. United States
38 Cust. Ct. 141 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
Glolite Corp. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 260 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. v. United States
20 Cust. Ct. 78 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
All America Cables & Radio, Inc. v. United States
16 Cust. Ct. 74 (U.S. Customs Court, 1946)
Davis Turner & Co. v. United States
13 Cust. Ct. 190 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)
Barber v. United States
6 Cust. Ct. 340 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
Hoenecke v. United States
6 Cust. Ct. 193 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
Waltham Watch Co. v. United States
25 C.C.P.A. 330 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1938)
United States v. Sussex Print Works
17 C.C.P.A. 257 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
United States v. Schenkers, Inc.
17 C.C.P.A. 231 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
Dayton Brass Castings Co. v. Gilligan
267 F. 872 (S.D. Ohio, 1920)
Richard v. United States
4 Ct. Cust. 470 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)