Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,837 times 30 Legal AnalysesHolding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove
211 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 451 timesHolding that any trial exhibit "is potentially compensable as exemplification" as long as "the means of presentation furthers [its] illustrative purpose"
Northbrook Excess v. Procter Gamble
924 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1991) Cited 350 timesHolding that the party seeking costs is "required to provide the best breakdown obtainable from retained records"
Shum v. Intel Corp.
629 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 118 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that “ court must choose one, and only one, ‘prevailing party’ to receive any costs award” under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Trading Technologies International v. Espeed, Inc.
750 F. Supp. 2d 962 (N.D. Ill. 2010) Cited 64 timesHolding that where the prevailing party has failed to provide sufficient information to ascertain that the costs are authorized, denial is an appropriate outcome
Se–Kure Controls, Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Grp., Inc.
873 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2012) Cited 59 timesFinding $405 per hour to be a reasonable expert rate
Gavoni v. Dobbs House, Inc.
164 F.3d 1071 (7th Cir. 1999) Cited 71 timesIn Gavoni v. Dobbs House, Inc., 164 F.3d 1071 (7th Cir. 1999), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for costs under Rule 68. The defendant had made an unapportioned offer of $10,000 to three plaintiffs and the jury ultimately awarded the plaintiffs a total of $6,500.
ARP Films, Inc. v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.
952 F.2d 643 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 83 timesHolding that "[i]n view of the mixed outcome of this litigation, the district court was well within its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties within the meaning of 505."
Smart v. Local 702 Int'l Broth. of Elec
573 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 37 timesNo. 07-4088. July 22, 2009. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, David R. Herndon, Chief Judge. Ronald D. Smart, pro se. Marilyn Teitelbaum, Schuchat, Cook Werner, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees. Gerald E. Berendt, pro se, Amicus Curiae. Before RIPPLE, KANNE and TINDER, Circuit Judges. MOTION TO COMPEL PAYMENTS OF COSTS PER CURIAM. This matter is before us on the plaintiff's motion to compel the payments of costs. For the reasons set forth in
Florentine Art Studio, Inc. v. Vedet K. Corp.
891 F. Supp. 532 (C.D. Cal. 1995) Cited 14 timesHolding that defendant was entitled to attorney's fees in copyright action, where defendant prevailed on seven of nine infringement counts despite being found to have infringed the remaining two copyrights
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,908 times 660 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,463 times 143 Legal AnalysesHolding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,245 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
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 1821 - Per diem and mileage generally; subsistence
28 U.S.C. § 1821 Cited 2,258 times 38 Legal AnalysesEnumerating witness fees and disbursements