Ford Motor Company 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.

• stating that if the importer’s “characterization of the facts is correct, [the broker’s] mistake might qualify as a ‘clerical error,’ but not as an ‘inadvertence.’ ”
• finding that where the party in error “garbled his instructions and therefore consistently— not carelessly — did not carry them out,” the error may qualify as a “clerical error” but not as an “inadvertence”
• finding that protesters can correct errors made not only by employees of Customs but also by employees of the importer, thus implying that Customs must consider additional documentation submitted by the importer at protest
• stating, “[a] full airing of the facts may disclose that [Customs’s delay] was unreasonable and therefore an abuse of Customs’ discretion,” and “the length of the fraud investigation is subject to scrutiny for reasonableness”
• “[F]or an error to be correctable, it must ... not qualify as an ‘error in the construction of a law.’ ”
• the nature of a summary judgment proceeding is such that the trial judge does not make findings of fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).