Tinch v. Video Industrial Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that court had jurisdiction over claim based on 19 U.S.C. § 1619 (1976), despite discretionary nature of statute’s language
• ruling that 19 U.S.C. § 1619 was money-mandating, despite discretionary language of statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).