EWING, FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR,
v.
GARDNER, EXECUTOR
EWING, FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR,
GARDNER, EXECUTOR
341 U.S. 321
Supreme Court of the United States (1951)
Caution
Also reported at: 95 L. Ed. 968 · 71 S. Ct. 684 · 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1892 · SCDB 1950-076
Cited by 40 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The sole question presented by the petition is the validity of the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the judgment rendered against the petitioner for costs by the District Court. There being no express statutory authority for the allowance of costs to the respondent, such an award of costs is precluded by 28 U. S. C. § 2412 (a). The judgment of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it relates to the taxation of costs against the petitioner, is therefore reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Associated AIR Transp., Inc., 275 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1960)…y allow costs to the prevailing party from the time of joining such issue. Such costs shall include only those actually incurred for witnesses and fees paid to the clerk.” The cases affirm that statutory basis must be found. Ewing v. Gardner, 1951, 341 U.S. 321, 71 S.Ct. 684, 95 L.Ed. 968; United States v. Patterson, 5 Cir., 208 F. 2d 345; Coyle Lines v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 108 F. 2d 195; North Atlantic & Gulf S.S. Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 1954, 209 F. 2d 487; United States v. Poling Russell,…
-
Lichter Found., Inc. v. Welch, 269 F.2d 142 (6th Cir. 1959)…includes actions against the Collector as well as against the United States because for all practical purposes a suit against the Collector and recovery thereby of taxes illegally collected is a suit against the United States. See: Ewing v. Gardner, 341 U.S. 321, 71 S.Ct. 684, 95 L.Ed. 968. Rule 81(f) plays no part in this argument as it is limited to a construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure and has no application to the statute. The argument of the Collector is theoretically sound but has been consi…
-
United States v. Patterson, 206 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1953)…tates v. Meyer, 7 Cir., 113 F. 2d 387, 394; United States v. Ring Const. Corp., D.C., 96 F.Supp. 762; United States v. Lashlee, D.C., 105. F. Supp. 184; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d. Ed., § 13.28, p. 75. . 28 U.S.C.A. § 2412(a); Ewing v. Gardner, 341 U.S. 321, 71 S.Ct. 684, 95 L.Ed. 968; Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cir., 198 F. 2d 195; Walling v. Frank Adam Elec. Co., 8 Cir., 163 F. 2d 277; Walling v. Norfolk So. Ry. Co., 4 Cir., 162 F. 2d 95.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence