JOSEPH P. HADDAD, ADMINISTRATOR, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
BORDER EXPRESS, INC., DEFENDANT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that costs for unnecessary portions of an appellee's record appendix should not be taxed against the appellant, and individual plaintiffs whose appeals were not perfected should not be charged costs.
Following a collision, multiple suits were filed. After jury verdicts for the defendant, plaintiffs appealed. The appellee incurred significant printi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consequential Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
WOODBURY, Chief Judge, with whom HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge, joins (concurring) .
We do not disagree with what Judge Aldrich writes. We would like to point out, however, that our clerk taxed costs in this case in accordance with the court’s mandate and our Rule 33(2). No fault lies with him. It lies basically with counsel for the appellant in failing to complain in his brief of his opponent’s record appendix, and perhaps to some extent with the court for not being more alert to the situation and directing taxation of costs accordingly. This is not to suggest that Judge Aldrich should shoulder the blame. Decisions of the court are not solos but concertos. We should all be on the watch for excessive unnecessary printing.
However, while we might have let costs stand as taxed for failure of appellant’s counsel to complain promptly instead of waiting until costs had been taxed against him, we suppose it is not even now too late in this exceptional case for the court to take corrective action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chernack v. Radlo, 331 F.2d 170 (1st Cir. 1964)
-
Calo v. United States, 338 F.2d 793 (1st Cir. 1964)
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- United Constr. Workers & United Mine Workers of Am. v. Haislip Baking Co., 223 F.2d 872 (4th Cir. 1955)
- Behr v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 352 U.S. 942 (U.S. 1956)
- Collins v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 942 (U.S. 1956)
- Dong Wing Ott v. Shaughnessy, 350 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1955)
- Ecker v. Atl. Ref. Co., 350 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1955)
- Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 108 F.2d 614 (3d Cir. 1939)
- Morrison v. Tex. Co., 289 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1961)
- Feener Bus. Schs., Inc. v. Sch. OF Speedwriting, Inc., 234 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1956)
- Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. Columbia Gas & Elec. Corp., 309 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1940)
- Steelman v. Wichita Falls & S. Ry. Co., 309 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1940)