Arkla, Inc. v. United States, 22 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Arkla, Inc. v. United States, 22 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Culinary Studios, Inc. v. Newsom (caed, 2021-02-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Culinary Studios, Inc. v. Newsom
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
Hoang, 910 22 F.3d at 1102-03; Ebner, 838 F.3d at, 962 Because the Court cannot definitively say at this time 23 that amendment would be futile, the Court will follow the general rule and permit Plaintiffs to 24 amend their substantive due process claim. 25 G.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Facts (“Def.’s Resp.”)); see also Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 871 , 872, 829 F.Supp. 1387, 1388 (1993), appeal dismissed, 22 F.3d 1102 , 1993 WL 533148 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Mitsubishi”): Plaintiff entered the imported merchandise under subheading 8454.90.00, HTSUS, as “Converters, ladles, ingot molds and casting machines, of a kind used in metallurgy or in metal foundries, and parts thereof: Parts ...
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arkla, Inc.
v.
United States
94-5023.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mar 1, 1994.
22 F.3d 1102
Published

22 F.3d 1102
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issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

ARKLA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-5023.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 1, 1994.

2

DISMISSED.

ORDER

3

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

4

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.