§Why CasetextPricing

Cordell Consultant, Inc. Money Purchase Plan and Trust, a Virginia Corporation v. Abbott et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re Defendant's MOTION for Bill of Costs and Defendant Steve I. Silverman

12 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. AI Transport

    229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 3,317 times
    Holding that a district court must have and state a sound basis for doing so

  2. Hecker v. Deere Co.

    556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,228 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding the use of revenue-sharing for plan expenses did not amount to an ERISA violation

  3. U.S. Equal Emp't Opp. Com. v. W O

    213 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 990 times
    Holding that "private process server fees may be taxed pursuant to §§ 1920 and 1921"

  4. Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc.

    249 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 224 times
    Finding error in award of costs for videotape exhibits and computer animation

  5. BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

    405 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 199 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that document translation costs are taxable under § 1920 because the "definition of interpret expressly includes to ‘translate into intelligible or familiar language’ " (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1182 (1981))

  6. Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.

    674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 162 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “only the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD involved [taxable] ‘copying,’ ” under § 1920

  7. Morrison v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

    97 F.3d 460 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 220 times
    Holding that "when a party notices a deposition to be recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised at that time by the other party to the method of recordation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), it is appropriate under § 1920 to award the cost of conducting the deposition in the manner noticed."

  8. DeSisto College, Inc. v. Town Of Howey-In-The-Hills

    718 F. Supp. 906 (M.D. Fla. 1989)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that the prevailing party must itemize photocopying costs to distinguish compensable copies from those made for the convenience of counsel

  9. Finnerty v. Stiefel Labs., Inc.

    900 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    Refusing to award the costs of an electronic database

  10. Murphy v. City of Flagler Beach

    761 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 36 times
    Rejecting as abuse of discretion trial court's blanket rule against awarding costs for all depositions not used at trial

  11. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 43,352 times   146 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

  12. Section 1920 - Taxation of costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 13,293 times   94 Legal Analyses
    Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States