Stella M. Rudloff v. United States, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Stella M. Rudloff v. United States, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chen v. United States (cit, 2025-09-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Chen v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rudloff v. United States, 19 CIT 1245 , 1249 (1995), aff’d, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Chang v. United States Sec'y of the Treasury
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rudloff v. United States, 19 CIT 1245 , 1246 n.2 (1995), aff'd, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Cavalier Clothes, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Amertex Enterprises Ltd. v. United States, 1995 WL 925961 at * 65 (1995), aff'd, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed.Cir.1997) (table), cert denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 851 , 139 L.Ed.2d 752 (1998); Grumman Aerospace Corp., 2001 WL 146691 (A.S.B.C.A.2001).
cited Cited "see" O'Quinn v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rudloff v. United States, 19 CIT 1245 , 1246 n.2 (1995), aff'd, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" O'Quinn v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rudloff v. United States, 19 CIT 1245 , 1246 n. 2 (1995), aff'd, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed.Cir.1997). .
discussed Cited "see" Barbara Schwarz v. Merit Systems Protection Board (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Everwise Credit Union
ttab · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
Use in commerce “contemplates ‘commercial use of the type common to the particular industry in question.’” Lewis Silkin LLP v. Firebrand LLC, No. 92067378, 2018 WL 6923002 , at *3 (TTAB 2018); see also Paramount Pictures Corp. v. White, 25 Reexamination No. 2023-100533R for Registration No. 7068783 No. 91090130, 1994 WL 484936 , at *7 n.8 (TTAB 1994) (quoting The United States Trademark Association Trademark Review Commission Report and Recommendations to USTA President and Board of Directors, 77 Trademark Rep. 375 , 395 (1987)), aff’d without published opinion, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grain Processing Corporation v. American Maize-Products Company
Fed. Cir. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 893 F.Supp. 1386, 1396 , 37 USPQ2d 1299, 1307 (N.D.Ind.1995) (Grain Processing VI), rev’d, Nos. 95-1506, 95-1507, 108 F.3d 1392 , 1997 WL 71726 (Fed.Cir.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stella M. Rudloff
v.
United States
96-1115.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Feb 19, 1997.
108 F.3d 1392
Unpublished

108 F.3d 1392

18 ITRD 2503

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Stella M. RUDLOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1115.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1997.

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges.

PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

1

The decision of the Court of International Trade, Doc. No. 95-01-00002, is affirmed for the reasons given by the trial court. Ms. Rudloff's appeal largely misapprehends our standard of review in challenges to the administration of the Customs brokerage exam. The Secretary of the Treasury is given broad power to license customs brokers. 19 U.S.C. § 1641 (1994). We can only overturn a decision by the Secretary to deny a customs brokers license if such decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1994); see also DiIorio v. United States, 14 CIT 746, 747 (1990). The exam required Ms. Rudloff to "select the BEST answer from among those provided." We need look no further than a recent ruling by Customs Headquarters to conclude that Customs satisfied their burden. In that ruling, Customs classified goods virtually identical to those in the question in the same classification as the preferred answer. See HQ 952716 (Dep't Treasury March 3, 1993). Accordingly, Customs' answer can hardly be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.