116 F. Supp. 102 - Perlman v. Feldmann’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently November 1999 · most notably United States v. Kolesar (1963), Independent Iron Works, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. (1963)
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1923 · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on United States ex rel. Chapman v. Federal Power Commission · Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Brookside Theatre Corp. · Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. · Vincennes Steel Corp. v. Miller · Stallo v. Wagner
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 1920. Taxation of costs. “A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following: # 7!- % # # “(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is implicit in the Rules that the party who notices a deposition shall initially stand the expense involved in this procedure. With the transcript on file all parties have a right to read it in the Clerk’s office. In such a case, a purchase of a copy from the stenographer by any party is obviously for his private convenience and cannot be taxed as an expense ‘necessarily obtained.’ However, it is my view that the cost of the original copy on file with the Clerk under Section 1920(2) of the Code may be taxed in favor of the party who noticed the deposition if he shall have prevailed on the merits and if it was necessarily obtained in the sense that the taking of the deposition and its general content was reasonably necessary for the development of the case in the light of the situation then existing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No recovery [in the action to which they were called as witnesses] was sought from them individually; their interest was not shown to be other than the natural concern of an officer for the welfare of this corporation. The Clerk's ruling [allowing the fees] was amply supported by the cases which he cited, viz., The Petroleum No. 5, D.C., 41 F.2d 268; Tuck v. Olds, C.C., 29 F. 883; Fredericksen v. McDonald, 1 Cir., 223 F. 13. Though these were admiralty cases the principle involved is equally applicable to the situation here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.