UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLEE,
v.
CERTAIN LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF IRVING PLACE AND 16TH STREET, ETC., AND BENJAMIN KAUFMAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 396 CORP., JACOB FREIDUS AND THE EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF SAMUEL E. AARON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an award of costs against the United States was improper because the underlying actions were filed before the effective date of the statute permitting such awards.
The court had previously awarded costs of appeal to landowners in a condemnation action. The United States petitioned for rehearing, arguing the award…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Costs On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The motion of the United States to delete costs is treated as a petition for rehearing, which petition is granted despite the fact that it was filed out of time. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 26(b).
In our previous opinion in this case, United States v. Certain Land, 415 F. 2d 265 (2d Cir. Sept. 4, 1969), we awarded the costs of appeal to the appellant landowners. It now appears that such award in a condemnation action was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a), 80 Stat. 308 (prior to amendment by Pub.L. 89-507, effective July 18,1966); see also, United States v. Worley, 281 U.S. 339, 344, 50 S. Ct. 291, 74 L.Ed. 887 (1929); United States for Use of TVA v. Pressnell, 328 F. 2d 580, 582 (6th Cir. 1964).
In opposing the government’s petition, the appellants contend that since this appeal was filed and decided subsequent to the effective date of the amendment of section 2412 to permit costs to be recovered against the United States in actions such as this, our award of appeal costs was proper. This argument overlooks the plain language of Public Law 89-507, the amendatory enactment, which states:
“These amendments shall apply only to judgments entered in actions filed subsequent to the date of the enactment of this Act [July 18, 1966].”
See also Allen v. Rachal et al., 283 F. Supp. 986 (W.D.Tex.1967).
Since both the actions underlying this appeal were filed prior to July 18, 1966, it is apparent that we were without authority to award costs to the appellants. Accordingly, we amend our opinion and delete from it, and from our mandate, the direction, 415 F. 2d at 272, awarding the defendants their costs on the appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Grand View Dev. Co., Inc. v. City of Alabaster, 1 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021)…of the property taken. United States v. Certain Land USCA11 Case: 18-14044 Date Filed: 06/21/2021 Page: 18 of 31 18 at Irving Place & 16th St., 415 F.2d 265, 271 (2d Cir.), amended sub nom. United States v. Certain Land, Irving Place & 16th St., 420 F.2d 370 (2d Cir. 1969). Relevant evidence can also include the “circumstances under which a plaintiff's [] property was confiscated" that underlie the takings claim. Paalan v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 99, 102 (2003). The City's argument that delving into…
-
Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 424 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Worley, 281 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1930)
- United States Upon the Relation & for the Use of the Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Council J. Pressnell, 328 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1964)
- United States v. Certain Land, 415 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1969)