Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.
482 U.S. 437 (1987) Cited 2,703 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that expert witness fees are not available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) because "when a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limit of § 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary"
Norman v. Housing Auth., City of Montgomery
836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) Cited 2,824 timesHolding that, when there is inadequate evidence of a prevailing market rate for a particular service, the district court is considered an expert on the question of reasonable fees and can consider its own knowledge and experience without additional pleadings or a hearing
U.S. Equal Emp't Opp. Com. v. W O
213 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 944 timesHolding that "private process server fees may be taxed pursuant to §§ 1920 and 1921"
Fogleman v. Aramco
920 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 363 timesHolding that costs for document copies, as with deposition transcripts, may be taxed even if not used at trial
Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch
107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) Cited 158 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding "if the elements of rule 1.442(c) were not mandatory, we would have stated at the beginning of rule 1.442(c) that the proposal 'may' contain the requirements listed in that subsection."
McMahan v. Toto
311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 180 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that § 768.79 is substantive for Erie purposes
Bankatlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber
12 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 1994) Cited 158 timesHolding litigation counsel's reliance on representations of in-house counsel insufficient to establish substantial justification for failure to produce discoverable materials from client's files to which litigation counsel had full access
State of Ill. v. Sangamo Const. Co.
657 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1981) Cited 185 timesHolding that a party may "recover as costs of suit for expert witnesses only the amount specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1821"
Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co.
863 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2003) Cited 73 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that an award of a multiplier is improper under section 768.79
Menchise v. Akerman
532 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 49 timesHolding that Rule 68 does not preempt Florida Statutes section 768.79
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,463 times 143 Legal AnalysesHolding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Section 1920 - Taxation of costs
28 U.S.C. § 1920 Cited 12,599 times 91 Legal AnalysesReferring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States
Section 1961 - Interest
28 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 11,486 times 25 Legal AnalysesHolding that § 6621 applies to internal revenue tax cases
Section 1821 - Per diem and mileage generally; subsistence
28 U.S.C. § 1821 Cited 2,258 times 38 Legal AnalysesEnumerating witness fees and disbursements
Section 768.79 - Offer of judgment and demand for judgment
Fla. Stat. § 768.79 Cited 1,066 times 43 Legal AnalysesGranting a court discretion not to award fees if it determines the offer was not made in good faith
Section 0.114 - Fees for services
28 C.F.R. § 0.114 Cited 1,173 timesEstablishing fees for personal service and for service by mail
Rule 1.442 - PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 Cited 638 times(a) Applicability. This rule applies to all proposals for settlement authorized by Florida law, regardless of the terms used to refer to such offers, demands, or proposals, and supersedes all other provisions of the rules and statutes that may be inconsistent with this rule. (b) Service of Proposal. A proposal to a defendant shall be served no earlier than 90 days after service of process on that defendant; a proposal to a plaintiff shall be served no earlier than 90 days after the action has been