Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(D)

235 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Northcross v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Memphis City Schs.
  611 F.2d 624· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-23 ·cited 254×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its fee award calculations or in denying compensation for certain services, but did err in awarding compensation for volunteered legal services.
• Obin v. Dist. NO. 9 OF THE Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  651 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 111×
  A motion for attorney's fees is a collateral and independent claim, not governed by the ten-day limit of Rule 59(e), and district courts retain jurisdiction to award fees after judgment on the merits.
• Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Indus.
  728 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 107×
  The court held that an order declaring entitlement to attorney's fees under ERISA is appealable even if the amount is not yet determined, and that the district court should reconsider the fee award under a 'substantially justified' standard, not a frivolousness standard.
• Carpa, Inc. v. Ward Foods, Inc.
  567 F.2d 1316· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 99×
  The court held that a state court judgment could not be offset against an attorneys' fee award due to the law of the case doctrine, and that attorneys' fees, being costs, do not bear interest. The court reversed the taxation of deposition copying costs for lack of factual inquiry
• Bond v. Stanton
  630 F.2d 1231· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-19 ·cited 90×
  Prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to attorney's fees for appellate work on the merits and for time spent litigating their entitlement to fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act.
• State OF Ill. v. Sangamo Constr. Co. & J. L. Simmons Co., Inc.
  657 F.2d 855· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-30 ·cited 89×
  The court held that a state represented by its Attorney General is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, calculated at prevailing market rates, and that expert witness fees are limited to statutory witness fees.
• Holmes v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc.
  682 F.2d 1143· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 86×
  An order leaving the amount of attorney's fees, awarded as damages for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure, undetermined is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.
• Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  684 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing attorneys' fees by 25% but erred in allowing a similar reduction for costs and expenses, which must be itemized and verified.
• Nemeroff v. Abelson
  620 F.2d 339· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the action was commenced in good faith, reversing the award of attorneys' fees. It affirmed the award of costs and remanded for a determination on whether the litigation conduct itself constituted bad faith.
• Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  701 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 76×
  Interest on awards of attorneys' fees and costs should bear interest from the date of the judgment making the award.
• Int'l Woodworkers OF Am. v. Champion Int'l Corp.
  790 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 73×
  Federal courts in non-diversity cases may tax fees of non-court-appointed expert witnesses only up to the amount specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1821, unless expressly authorized by Congress or a narrow equitable exception applies.
• Allen v. United States Steel Corp.
  665 F.2d 689· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 73×
  The court held that plaintiffs' Title VII claims were time-barred because they failed to file EEOC complaints within the 180-day limitations period after their most recent discriminatory layoffs and recalls. The continuing violation theory was rejected.
• Odessa Carrion v. Yeshiva Univ.
  535 F.2d 722· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 71×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the discrimination claims and its award of attorney's fees to the defendant, finding the plaintiff's action to be frivolous and malicious.
• Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.
  708 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the disparate impact model for supervisory and upper-level craft positions.
• Palermo v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison
  545 F.2d 286· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 61×
  The dissenting judge would not grant specific performance of an unauthorized and unfulfillable prosecutorial promise that intruded upon independent agencies' discretion.
• Badillo v. Cent. Steel & Wire Co.
  717 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, as the plaintiff's claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, and there was no showing of bad faith by the plaintiff or counsel.
• Popeil Bros., Inc. v. Schick Elec., Inc.
  516 F.2d 772· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-06 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by setting aside costs awarded to the prevailing party under Rule 54(d) when the losing party showed no fault. However, the denial of expenses and attorney fees under Rule 37(c) was affirmed due to the trial court's bro
• Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Lomelo
  929 F.2d 633· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 52×
  A municipality is not liable under § 1983 for a mayor's criminal acts unless those acts were officially sanctioned or made pursuant to a municipal policy by an official with final policy-making authority. A prevailing party may recover costs even if paid by a non-party insurer.
• Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.
  639 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a party's control over another's securities and unfettered ability to use the proceeds for their own benefit constitutes 'profit realized by him' under § 16(b), affirming liability. However, the court reversed and remanded on the issue of the statute of limita
• Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State Coll.
  702 F.2d 686· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-15 ·cited 51×
  The court held that a college's tenure-based faculty selection plan, which had a disparate impact on older workers and was justified by cost savings, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court also modified the relief awarded, including back pay and senio
• White v. NEW Hampshire Dep't OF Emp. Sec.
  629 F.2d 697· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 50×
  A motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 must be filed within the 10-day period prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) for motions to alter or amend a judgment, and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a late request.
• United States v. Mitchell
  580 F.2d 789· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 50×
  The Attorney General is not authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3613 to seek compensatory or punitive damages on behalf of injured parties, as the statute limits the Attorney General to seeking equitable relief. The award of costs to the government was proper.
• First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.
  766 F.2d 1007· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on most claims and awarded attorneys' fees proportionally based on each party's success.
• Matthews v. Allis-Chalmers
  769 F.2d 1215· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the district court did not err in awarding costs to the prevailing defendant.
• Gilchrist v. Bolger
  733 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the denial of class certification and the judgment for the defendant on individual claims, but vacated and remanded the denial of costs.
• POE v. John Deere Co.
  695 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that res judicata barred the second suit because it arose from the same transaction as the first suit, and that the award of costs was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  691 F.2d 438· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a Rule 60 motion was the proper procedural vehicle to challenge a costs award based on an alleged error of law or the law of the case, and that Rule 68 mandated costs for the state.
• Gary W. v. State OF La.
  601 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in appointing a Special Master to oversee implementation of a prior order protecting children's rights, nor in directing the state to pay the master's fees and expenses.
• Frank W. Scroggins in Bankr. for Air Transfer, Inc. v. AIR Cargo, Inc.
  534 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-08 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the alleged antitrust conduct was immunized by the Federal Aviation Act and CAB approvals, and the state law claim failed because the contract authorized the conduct.
• BLY v. McLEOD
  605 F.2d 134· 4th Cir.· 1979-09-12 ·cited 42×
  A party is not considered prevailing for the purpose of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e) based solely on procedural victories like a temporary restraining order or a remand, without success on the merits.
• K-2 SKI Co. v. Head SKI Co., Inc.
  506 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the award of attorney's fees was improper, and remanded the issues of the injunction's duration and damages for further consideration by the trial court.
• United States v. 341.45 Acres OF Land
  751 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The court should affirm the denial of attorneys' fees and expenses because the EAJA does not apply to condemnation cases.
• COX v. Flood
  683 F.2d 330· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-15 ·cited 38×
  Judgments finally disposing of the merits are appealable even if attorney's fees are undecided.
• Bergquist v. Cnty. OF Cochise
  806 F.2d 1364· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that officers are not per se shielded from liability by a magistrate's issuance of a warrant and that a policy of gross negligence in training or supervision can give rise to § 1983 liability.
• In re Nissan Antitrust Litigation. P. D. Q. v. Nissan Motor Corp. IN U. S. A. & Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
  577 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that Nissan's cooperative advertising program, in the context of a vertical restraint and absent a jury finding of a nationwide price-fixing conspiracy, was not a per se violation of the Sherman Act and should be evaluated under the rule of reason. The award of cos
• Daly v. Hill
  790 F.2d 1071· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court properly calculated attorney's fees based on rates at the time services were rendered and reasonably disallowed certain litigation expenses.
• Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH for the Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  713 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to award costs to the prevailing party, but lacked jurisdiction to award post-judgment interest on those costs after a notice of appeal was filed. Certain costs were reversed, others remanded for further findings, and some a
• Jones v. Diamond
  594 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while some injunctive relief was warranted, the plaintiffs were entitled to further relief, including potential damages for constitutional violations, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of class certification and damages.
• Captain Shelby C. Roberts v. Lemos
  651 F.2d 201· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the denial of travel expenses for a court-ordered witness and the denial of expert witness fees were abuses of discretion, reversing the lower court's decision on these costs.
• Danner v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n
  635 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while most of the district court's findings were correct, the case must be remanded for further findings regarding the second pass over for promotion, as administrative convenience alone was insufficient to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case of discriminat
• Schwarz v. Folloder
  767 F.2d 125· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a district court must provide reasons for denying costs or attorney's fees to a prevailing party, even when dismissing claims with prejudice.
• Artur Davis v. Legal Servs. Ala., Inc.
  19 F.4th 1261· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-02 ·cited 32×
  A paid suspension, without more, is not an adverse employment action under Title VII or § 1981, and disclosure to a public relations consultant acting as an agent is not publication for defamation under Alabama law.
• Reichman v. Bonsignore
  818 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that sufficient evidence supported findings of ADEA and ERISA violations, that liquidated damages and prejudgment interest were properly awarded, and that attorney's fees and costs were reasonable.
• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Star City Gravel Co., Inc.
  592 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the denial of indemnity and costs, holding that the railroad waived its indemnity claim by failing to request proper jury instructions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs.
• Baez v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  684 F.2d 999· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 31×
  The Government, as the prevailing party on appeal, is entitled to recover its costs for printing its brief, as there is a strong presumption favoring cost awards to prevailing parties and the appellant has not shown sufficient reason to overcome this presumption.
• United States Marshals Serv. v. Means
  741 F.2d 1053· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-14 ·cited 30×
  A district court has the discretionary power to order the United States, as a party, to advance fees and expenses for lay and expert witnesses called by the court, to be taxed as costs later, under compelling circumstances.
• Chavez v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist. # 213
  565 F.2d 1087· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII or § 1983 because the position she sought was already filled by a prior appointment, and the district's employment practices were not shown to be discriminatory.
• Dorsey v. Acad. Moving & Storage, Inc.
  423 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions of dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders when the plaintiff demonstrated inability to comply, not willfulness or bad faith.
• Carter v. Ellis Campbell, Jr.
  285 F.2d 68· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence presented did not establish fraud, and the lower court's findings were based on insufficient grounds and unreliable testimony.
• Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.
  758 F.2d 1237· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 29×
  The court held that while it has the authority to adopt an appellate waiver rule for objections to magistrate reports, it would not do so in this case due to improper procedure in referring the costs motion to a special master.