Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sigma-Tau Healthscience, Inc. v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sigma-Tau Healthscience, Inc. v. United States Anchor | green | “when there is no dispute as to the nature of the merchandise, then the two-step classification analysis 'collapses entirely into a question of law.” | 8 |
| 2 | Aromant Usa, Inc. v. United States | green | “has been defined as the use 'which exceeds any other single use.” | 6 |
| 3 | Kahrs International, Inc. v. United States | green | “are not legally binding or dispositive,” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.