Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 F. Supp. 736

Weiss v. Smith

Connecticut District Court

Decided March 17, 1952

Connecticut District Court · decided 1952-03-17

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1952-03-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2014

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

401952196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SMITH, District Judge.

¶1Defendant, in his brief, attacks two items taxed as costs, the premium on the injunction bond, and stenographic fees.

¶2Bond premiums are, under the practice in this District, taxed as costs to the prevailing party as a matter of course under local Rule 13, Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut.

¶3No reason appears for the disallowance of the premium here in -whole or in part in the exercise of the Court’s discretion.

¶4Transcripts necessarily obtained for the use of a party in the case are taxable as costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (2).

¶5Defendant makes no attempt to show that all or part of the transcript obtained by the plaintiff was unnecessary. Indeed, the last paragraph of defendant’s brief appears to concede the necessity of the transcript for plaintiff’s use.

¶6The motion to review taxation of costs is denied.

/103/fsupp/736 · .json · Public domain