Cemex Sa v. United States Az-Nm-Tx-Fl’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 897 · 1998
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc. (2001), Consolidated Bearings Company v. United States (2003)
26 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on McCarthy v. Madigan · Smith-Corona Group v. United States · Fujitsu General Limited v. United States · Ntn Bearing Corporation v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind. [Commerce] shall consider the following sales and transactions, among others, to be outside the ordinary course of trade: (A) Sales disregarded under section 1677b(b)(l) of this title. (B) Transactions disregarded under section 1677b(f)(2) of this title.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“examined the record with respect to NTN’s alleged home market sample sales to determine if these sales qualify for such an exclusion. In its original questionnaire response, NTN only states that “samples are provided to customers for the purpose of allowing the customer to determine whether a particular product is suited to the customer’s needs” and that “the purpose ... would not be the same as those purchased in the normal course of trade.” ... Furthermore, NTN did not provide additional information in its supplemental response clearly demonstrating that its alleged sample sales were outside the ordinary course of trade.... However, the mere fact that a respondent identified sales as samples does not necessarily render such sales outside the ordinary course of trade. ... For these reasons, [Commerce] disagreed] with NTN that its home market sample sales should be excluded from [the] margin calculations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.