Euler v. Waller’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.2d 765 · 1961
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably Ramos v. Lamm (1983), Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Frank Nisley, Jr., Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. John F. Wade, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Howard Balsley, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Unnamed (1962)
20 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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. § 1821 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920
Relies on Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Rodriguez v. New York · In Re Peterson · Henkel v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. · Specialty Equipment & Machinery Corp. v. Zell Motor Car Co.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The allowance for the map prepared by the surveyor presents a different problem. No provision is made by the statute for the taxation of any such item as costs. The cases are not in harmony on the question of whether costs may be allowed for such items as models, wall charts, maps, and photographs. In our opinion when costs are sought for items not listed in § 1920 the procedure to be followed is an application to the court in advance of trial for an approving order. This allows the exercise of judicial discretion and at the same time conforms with the holding in Ex parte Peterson * * * which recognized the inclusion in taxable costs of ‘expenditures incident to the litigation which were ordered by the court because deemed essential to a proper consideration of the case by the court or the jury.’ In the case now before us there was no advance approval. The cost of the map is disallowed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The amounts arrived at in this bill are considered to be more fair than presently existing amounts, although it is recognized that certain witnesses will not, under the proposed rates, be adequately compensated. In order to fairly compensate everyone appearing as a witness it would be necessary to have either a graduated scale of fees, or, leave the amount of such fees in the discretion of the judge. Neither was considered feasible, and therefore the amounts arrived at herein are more or less arbitrary, but considered to be reasonably fair to the average witness”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morgan v. Kight“For compelling reasons of justice in exceptional cases allowances may be made of items of cost not authorized by the statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ramos v. Lamm
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.