Meade v. WRM & Assocs.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Forest Products did not “detail how the purported Customs investigation currently affects its business operations, its public persona, or the privacy of its principals”
• indicating that good cause is established “by specifically demonstrating that ‘disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury’ ” (quoting Glenmede Trust Co. v. 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995))
• indicating that good cause is established “by specifically demonstrating that ‘disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury* ” (quoting Glenmede Trust Co. v. 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995))
• “Furthermore, Forest Products’ complaint would require the Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate the validity of Customs’ classification and, collaterally, the appropriateness of the imposed antidumping and countervailing duties.”
• “an entry of imported merchandise which is not liquidated within four years after the date of entry is liquidated by operation of law.. .unless liquidation continues to be suspended by statute or court order”
• “It is beyond any doubt that exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandated before relief may be sought in the courts.” (citing Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 41, 51-52, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938)), aff'd, 453 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed.Cir.2006)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).