McDonald v. Petree’s Empirical Analysis
409 F.3d 724 · 2005
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew · Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp. · Holmes v. City of Massillon
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" In an early analysis of Rule 54(d), this court stated that the rule was intended to take care of a situation where, although a litigant was the successful party, it would be inequitable under all the circumstances in the case to put the burden of costs upon the losing party. We have described several circumstances in which a denial of costs is a proper exercise of discretion under the rule. *Page 4 Such circumstances include cases where taxable expenditures by the prevailing party are `unnecessary or unreasonably large,' cases where the prevailing party should be penalized for unnecessarily prolonging trial or for injecting unmeritorious issues, cases where the prevailing party's recovery is so insignificant that the judgment amounts to a victory for the defendant, and cases that are `close and difficult. ' "This court has also identified factors that a district court should ignore when determining whether to exercise its discretion and deny costs. Examples of inappropriate factors include the size of a successful litigant's recovery, and the ability of the prevailing party to pay his or her costs. Other courts have identified factors that may be considered but, in the absence of other relevant factors, do not warrant an exercise of discretion under Rule 54(d). An example of a relevant but insufficient basis for denying costs is the good faith a losing party demonstrates in filing, prosecuting or defending an action. Another is the propriety with which the losing party cond”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.