Casio, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an item cannot be classified in an eo nomine provision if it “is in character or function something other than as described … and the difference is significant”
• affirming the trial court's finding that the subject articles— synthesizers—were not beyond the scope of the eo nomine \electronic musical instrument\ tariff provision because the additional features of the articles were \designed primarily to make it easier for a musician to create music\
• affirming the trial court’s finding that the subject articles— synthesizers — were not beyond the scope of the eo nomine “electronic musical instrument” tariff provision because the additional features of the articles were “designed primarily to make it easier for a musician to create music”
• affirming trial court’s classification of a synthesizer as a musical instrument because the “additional features are designed primarily to make it easier for a musician to create music or embellish the sound he or she would normally be able to produce”
• an electronic synthesizer does not possess characteristics in substantial excess of ordinary musical instruments because its “additional features are designed primarily to make it easier for a musician to create music or embellish the sound he or she would normally be able to produce”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).