Weiss v. Smith

103 F. Supp. 736, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4560
District Court, D. Connecticut·Decided March 17, 1952·No. Civ. No. 3366·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

SMITH, District Judge.

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

Bond 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.

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

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

Defendant 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.

The motion to review taxation of costs is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Weiss v. Smith, 103 F. Supp. 736, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4560 (D. Conn. 1952).

103 F. Supp. 736 (Weiss v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bcpeabody Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
117 Fed. Cl. 408 (Federal Claims, 2014)
Auto Servi, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado
142 P.R. Dec. 321 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1997)
Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
24 F.R.D. 305 (D. Delaware, 1959)
Manley v. Canterbury Corp.
17 F.R.D. 234 (D. Delaware, 1955)
Perlman v. Feldmann
116 F. Supp. 102 (D. Connecticut, 1953)
Marshall v. Southern Pac. Co.
14 F.R.D. 228 (N.D. California, 1953)