Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffprecedentsustained
plaintiffsustained

Related Cases

McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 1698338
View Case »
Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626
View Case »
Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 10, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,341, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,281
View Case »
Thoreen v. U.S., 455 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1428 (Mem), 71 L.Ed.2d 648
View Case »
Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750, 17 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1000, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8402
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lachman Distributors v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 40 Cust.Ct. 404, 1957 WL 10281, Abs. No. 61,423

Facts

The merchandise in question consisted of aneroid barometers of a household type. The parties agreed that these barometers were the same in all material respects as those involved in a prior case, which set a precedent for the classification of such items.

The merchandise in question consisted of aneroid barometers of a household type.

Issue

Whether the aneroid barometers should be classified in the same manner as those in the prior case.

Whether the aneroid barometers should be classified in the same manner as those in the prior case.

Rule

The court applied the principle of consistency in classification based on prior rulings regarding similar merchandise.

The court applied the principle of consistency in classification based on prior rulings regarding similar merchandise.

Analysis

The court found that the stipulation of counsel confirmed that the merchandise was identical in all material respects to the barometers previously classified. This consistency allowed the court to sustain the plaintiff's claim.

The court found that the stipulation of counsel confirmed that the merchandise was identical in all material respects to the barometers previously classified.

Conclusion

The court sustained the claim of the plaintiff, affirming the classification of the merchandise as consistent with prior rulings.

The court sustained the claim of the plaintiff, affirming the classification of the merchandise as consistent with prior rulings.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the merchandise was the same as previously classified items.

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the merchandise was the same as previously classified items.

You must be