United States v. Priority Products, Inc., and Walter L. And Rosalie E. Huss

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that \Congress appears to have recognized\ § 2637(d)'s non-jurisdictional nature \by granting the [CIT] some discretion to excuse the failure to exhaust administrative remedies\
• noting under similar circumstances that, if it did, “the trial court would have been amply justified in excusing the Government’s failure”
• affirming court’s subject matter jurisdiction over recovery action against individual shareholders when the pre-penalty and penalty notices named only the corporation
• finding constructive notice on the narrow facts of that case when the defendant was one of three corporate officers and made “important decisions regarding the attempted importation”
• “Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not strictly speaking a jurisdictional requirement and hence the court may waive that requirement and reach the merits of the complaint.”
• “Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not strictly speaking a jurisdictional requirement and hence the court may waive that requirement and reach the merits of the complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).