General
Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc. v. United States; Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc. v. United States; R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. v. United States; Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc. v. United States; Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States; Seedman International Corp. et al. v. United States; Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States
61 Cust. Ct. 650·United States Customs Court·1968
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Before the Second Division,
September 25, 1968
No. P68/406.
protests 58/17281, etc. (New York).
No. P68/407.
protests 59/23056, etc. (New York).
No. P68/408.
protest 60/268 (New York).
No. P68/409.
protests 60/3962, etc. (New York).
No. P68/410.
protest 61/5002 (Seattle).
Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc. v. United States, Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc. v. United States, R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. v. United States, Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc. v. United States, Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States, Seedman International Corp. et al. v. United States, Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States,
No. P68/411.
protests 62/5339, etc. (Los Angeles).
No. P68/412.
protest 67/48677 (New York).
[MAJORITY — Rao, C.J.]
Rao, C.J.
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding 1% inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of United States v. Schmidt Pritchard & Co., Mangano Cycles Co. (47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.