Dodge & Olcott v. United States
Citations
- 130 F. 624
- 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1156
Syllabus
<p>1. Customs Duties — “Medicinal Preparations” Defined.</p> <p>Tbe expression “medicinal preparations,” as used in the tariff act, means such articles as are of use, or believed by the prescribe! or user fairly and honestly to be of use, in curing or alleviating, or palliating or preventing, some disease or affection of the human frame.</p> <p>2. Same — Orange-Flower Water — Rose Water — Medicinal Preparations— Unenumerated Articles.</p> <p>Orange-flower water and rose water, which are articles used to some extent medicinally, but chiefly for other purposes not mentioned in any enumerations of the tariff, are dutiable as “medicinal preparations” under Tariff Act March 3, 1883, c. 121, Schedule A (22 Stat. 494), and not according to the provisions of sections 2499 and 2513, Rev. St, as amended by section 6 of said act (22 Stat. 489, 491, 523), relating to articles not “enumerated” in said act.</p> <p>3. Same — Rule of Classification — Chief Use — Unenumerated Articles.</p> <p>In order to remove an imported article from the operation of a tariff provision for merchandise not “enumerated,” it is not necessary to show that there is an enumeration of the article according to its chief use. It is enough if there is an enumeration describing any minor use.</p> <p>IT 1. Interpretation of commercial and trade terms in tariff laws, see note to Dennison Mfg. Go. v. United States, 18 C. C. A. 545.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “good cause” standard was established for adding four new named plaintiffs alleging state and federal claims when conditional certification was not granted and notice not authorized until after deadline for amending pleadings
- noting that “[a] court is more likely to find an amendment prejudicial if discovery has closed”
- finding that plaintiffs demonstrated diligence and good cause despite having waited three months after opt-in period closed before moving to file a single further amended complaint
- noting that defendant was not prejudiced “because discovery has not yet concluded” and “[a] court is more likely to find an amendment prejudicial if discovery has closed”
- finding good cause existed to amend pleading under Rule 16(b) where plaintiffs learned of additional potential plaintiffs over four months before moving to amend
- finding lack of undue prejudice where defendant had previously attempted to seek discovery over matters related to the proposed claim
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Eacombe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.