Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(D)

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

• The Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comm'r OF Labor & Indus.
  685 F.2d 1088· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 29×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the employer's federal claims were defenses to a state law claim, not an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Callaway
  497 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filed under NEPA was adequate and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in taxing costs.
• Woods Constr. Co., Inc. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc.
  337 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-09 ·cited 26×
  The trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees because the appellee failed to comply with the local court rules regarding the timely filing and verification of a cost bill.
• DeSisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of Howey-In-The-Hills
  718 F. Supp. 906· M.D. Fla.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that prevailing defendants are entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and § 1821, but not attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 unless the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, which it found to be the case here.
• Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp.
  770 F.2d 245· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 25×
  The court held that plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the denial of prejudgment interest by failing to object to the magistrate's report and that deposition costs and docket fees should have been taxed to the defendant.
• Gordon v. Heimann
  715 F.2d 531· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that motions for attorneys' fees are not governed by the ten-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and should be considered timely if filed within a reasonable period after judgment.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport ON June 24
  687 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that plaintiffs who settled 'without costs' are not entitled to recover costs, and that costs for transcripts and exhibits must be limited to expenses actually incurred by the party seeking reimbursement.
• Ga. Ass'n OF Retarded Citizens v. McDANIEL
  855 F.2d 794· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 24×
  An award of costs taxed against a losing party bears interest from the date of the original judgment.
• Flint v. Haynes
  651 F.2d 970· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 24×
  A district court may assess costs against civil rights litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
• SCA Servs., Inc. v. Lucky Stores
  599 F.2d 178· 7th Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Michigan law, as chosen by the contract, entitled General Mill to interest on its judgment from the date its counterclaim was filed, and that the district court abused its discretion by disallowing all deposition expenses as costs.
• Mrs. Lucille Jurisich Breeland v. Hide-A-Way Lake, Inc.
  585 F.2d 716· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Mississippi long-arm statute's 'doing business' provision is not available to non-resident plaintiffs, and this construction does not violate constitutional protections. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion in taxing costs aga
• Ira W. Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc.
  889 F.2d 115· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 23×
  The court held that an employee can waive entitlement to long-term disability benefits under an ERISA welfare benefit plan, and that the severance agreements were validly entered into.
• Mennor v. The Fort Hood Nat'l Bank
  829 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 23×
  The 300-day filing period under Title VII applies even if state or local agency proceedings are not timely instituted under state or local law. Costs awarded to the prevailing party are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Baum v. United States
  432 F.2d 85· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-08 ·cited 23×
  The court held that expert witness fees, beyond subsistence and travel, are not taxable against the losing party under Rule 54(d) and federal law, even when the United States is a party.
• Romero v. The City OF Pomona
  883 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to reopen their case, in its application of the geographical compactness test, or in denying defendants' motion to retax costs for expert witness fees.
• Gardner v. S. Ry. Sys.
  675 F.2d 949· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the exclusion of prior accident evidence and the amendment of the answer, but reversed and remanded the denial of costs.
• Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
  924 F.2d 633· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-04 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court's award of costs for a computerized document database was not an abuse of discretion and should not have been vacated.
• Lucas v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  729 F.2d 1300· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 21×
  A motion concerning only costs, even if mislabeled as a Rule 59 motion, does not render a prior notice of appeal ineffective under F.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).
• Stern v. Shouldice
  706 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed. It affirmed the award of nominal damages, costs, and attorney's fees but reversed the award of back pay and prejudgment interest against the individual defendants.
• Maier Brewing Co. v. The Fleischmann Distilling Corp.
  359 F.2d 156· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-16 ·cited 21×
  Attorney's fees are not recoverable in trademark infringement cases under the Lanham Act because the statute does not provide for them, and such awards are not justified by general equitable principles or prior case law.
• Maxwell v. Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft
  862 F.2d 767· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing a jury instruction on presumed fault for personal injury from a ship's wake and in awarding photographic expenses as costs.
• Chaparral Res., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
  849 F.2d 1286· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting damages to data delivered and in awarding expert witness fees exceeding federal statutory limits.
• Gautreaux v. The Chicago Hous. Auth.
  690 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's award of attorneys' fees for work performed before the effective date of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 was excessive and beyond Congressional intent.
• Subscription Television, Inc. v. S. Cal. Theatre Owners Ass'n
  576 F.2d 230· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-31 ·cited 20×
  The Noerr-Pennington doctrine exempts from antitrust liability attempts to influence legislative action, even if the action sought is later found unconstitutional or the intent was anticompetitive. The court also vacated an order denying costs for lack of explanation.
• Farmer v. Arabian Am. OIL Co.
  324 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1963-11-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in limiting taxable travel costs for witnesses to the 100-mile limit, aligning with established federal practice.
• Cates v. Sears
  928 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in applying comparative fault principles to a products liability claim and in denying a directed verdict on causation, but erred in excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures regarding warnings, though this error was harmles
• Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  891 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions because the defendants' insistence on Hague Convention service was warranted by existing law and not for an improper purpose. The court affirmed the denial of discovery sanctions and the ta
• Moore v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.
  762 F.2d 1093· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's approval of a settlement, which included a waiver of attorneys' fees negotiated simultaneously with the merits, was not an abuse of discretion given the specific facts of the case.
• Harris v. T.J. Forsyth and F. Christensen
  742 F.2d 1277· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-14 ·cited 18×
  Costs may be assessed against an appellant proceeding in forma pauperis, but the decision to award costs is within the appellate court's discretion.
• Wright v. Schock
  742 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 18×
  A district court may, in its discretion, rule on a defendant's motion for summary judgment before ruling on a plaintiff's motion for class certification, especially when the defendant consents and no prejudice results.
• Edwards H. Metcalf v. Borba
  681 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 18×
  A postjudgment request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not subject to the ten-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or local rules governing routine costs.
• Lam QUY v. AIR Am., Inc.
  667 F.2d 1059· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-20 ·cited 18×
  Costs for a witness who appeared but was not called to testify are allowable if the decision to have them available was made in good faith and was reasonable. Costs for translation services are allowable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6). Fees for privately retained expert witnesses are
• Gottlieb v. Tulane Univ. OF La.
  809 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-10 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court's finding of no intentional discrimination was not clearly erroneous, but erred in dismissing the retaliation claim for lack of jurisdiction.
• DELTA AIR Lines, Inc. v. Colbert
  692 F.2d 489· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a prevailing party in a Title VII suit is presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 54(d), and a plaintiff's colorable claims are insufficient grounds to deny costs.
• M.T. Bonk Co. & Mark T. Bonk v. Milton Bradley Co. & Hasbro, Inc.
  945 F.2d 1404· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial, limiting witness examination, or awarding costs, as the jury verdict was supported by evidence and procedural rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• Friedrich v. City OF Chicago & Fred Rice
  888 F.2d 511· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, allows for the recovery of expert witness fees as part of costs, even though the statute literally refers only to 'attorney's fees'. This interpretation is based on the Act's purpose to restore pre-Alyeska equ
• Tiedel v. Nw. Mich. Coll.
  865 F.2d 88· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 16×
  A district court may not enforce its pretrial mediation plan by taxing the losing party with the prevailing party's actual attorneys' fees solely based on a local rule.
• Pershern v. Fiatallis N. Am., Inc.
  834 F.2d 136· 8th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly submitted the contract modification theory to the jury and that the jury instructions were adequate, but reversed a portion of the costs award.
• Burroughs v. Hills
  741 F.2d 1525· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying costs to the prevailing defendants under Rule 54(d), and that the plaintiffs failed to establish an implied private right of action under the relevant housing statute.
• Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am.
  527 F.2d 269· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the International Union was not liable for the local union's unlawful acts due to a lack of 'clear proof' of authorization or ratification, but affirmed the compensatory damages award against the local union.
• Denny v. Westfield State Coll.
  880 F.2d 1465· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 15×
  Prevailing parties under Title VII cannot recover expert witness fees beyond the statutory limits set by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920, as Title VII's fee-shifting provision does not explicitly authorize such recovery.
• Nemmers v. City OF Dubuque
  764 F.2d 502· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying all damages for the temporary taking of land, and that expert witness fees were properly awarded.
• Brown v. The City OF Palmetto
  681 F.2d 1325· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 was timely filed, but the denial of fees for the appeal was an abuse of discretion.
• Rothenberg v. Sec. Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  677 F.2d 64· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 15×
  The district court retained jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney's fees filed after the notice of appeal.
• Janet M. d'Hedouville v. Pioneer Hotel Co. & Pioneer Hotel Props.
  552 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-26 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed judgments against Monsanto, finding sufficient evidence for strict liability, rejecting claims of error in jury instructions and evidence admission, and upholding awards for wrongful death and property damage.
• Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. Stamps
  920 F.2d 1361· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while compensatory damages for fraud and conversion were supported by the evidence, punitive damages and prejudgment interest were improperly awarded. Costs for videotaping depositions were allowed, but not for their transcripts.
• Associated Builders & Contractors OF La., Inc. v. The Orleans Parish Sch. Bd.
  919 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the award or in considering the timeliness of the request.
• Durham v. Kelly
  810 F.2d 1500· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a motion to amend a judgment to award costs does not fall under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), thus not rendering a prior notice of appeal ineffective. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact reg
• Muslin v. Frelinghuysen Livestock Managers, Inc.
  777 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the insurer was not estopped from enforcing policy provisions voiding coverage upon assignment without written consent, and that the agent lacked apparent authority to waive these provisions, but reversed the denial of costs to the prevailing party.
• In re Puerto RICO Elec. Power Auth.
  687 F.2d 501· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering PREPA to translate Spanish documents, as Rule 34(a) does not grant such power and it violates the principle of each party bearing their own suit costs. However, the writ of mandamus is conditioned on PREPA