Court Opinion

ID: 9677952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:06:58.755585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:00.451312
License: Public Domain

OLIVER, Chief Judge (concurring).
I concur with the majority in their conclusions, overruling the protests and denying defendant’s motion to incorporate the record in Swanson-Lindstrand, Inc. v. United States, 32 Cus.Ct. 526, Abstract 58171. In doing so, I do not agree that the record in a previous case may not be incorporated in a pending case, over objection, solely on the ground that the parties are not the same.
The rule under consideration (rule 20) is very clear and explicit in stating that the record, or any part thereof, in a previous case, may “within the discretion of the court [italics supplied], be admitted in evidence in the pending case upon motion of either party * * Exercising discretion in the application of the rule involves consideration of many different factors, so that whether or not a record should be incorporated is a matter to be determined from the facts and circumstances in each particular case.