28 U.S.C. § 1917
District courts; fee on filing notice of or petition for appeal
Upon the filing of any separate or joint notice of appeal or application for appeal or upon the receipt of any order allowing, or notice of the allowance of, an appeal or of a writ of certiorari $5 shall be paid to the clerk of the district court, by the appellant or petitioner.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Keith v. Heckler, 603 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Va. 1985).
Keith v. Heckler, 603 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Va. 1985). “The Supreme Court’s per curiam, one page opinion in Parissi, supra, was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1917 , which details fees payable on appeals taken from district courts.”
Leslie Thomas Leonard v. Peter J. Lacy, Superintendent, Bare Hill Facility, & Myaddow, Corr. Officer, 88 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 1996). “” The $5 fee is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917 “[ujpon the filing of any separate or joint notice of appeal,” although that provision does not label the fee as a “filing fee.”
Prowswood, Inc. v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 676 P.2d 952 (Utah 1984). “The language of Rule 73(a) differs from the federal rules at issue in Parissi and Gould (to wit: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1917 & 2107), as well as the more current Rule 3(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in one important regard.”
Roy A. Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enter., Inc. & Louis G. Bond, 932 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1991). “867 (1955) (per curiam) (filing fee not a prerequisite for proper filing of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1917 ).”
San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L. P., 593 U.S. 330 (2021). “See 28 U. S. C. §1917 . For the reasons set out above, we hold that courts of ap- peals have the discretion to apportion all the appellate costs covered by Rule 39 and that district courts cannot alter that allocation.”
Thomas Kevin McDowell v. Delaware State Police John Campanella, Detective Peachey, Trooper Romanelli, Trooper Simpson, Trooper, 88 F.3d 188 (3rd Cir. 1996). “867 (1955) (per curiam) (untimely payment of a filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1917 does not vitiate the validity of a notice of appeal); Gould v.”
Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 713 F. Supp. 533 (N.D.N.Y. 1989). “Specifically, in Keith the court persuasively explained: The Court believes that the Parissi Supreme Court decision is properly applicable to appeals from the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1917 , and not to cases construing payment of district court fees under 28 U.”
Alley v. Bell, 101 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Tenn. 2000). “2 28 U.S.C. § 1917 .142 28 U.S.C. § 2251 . 2,143 28 U.”
Eddie R. Walker v. F. David Mathews, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Defendant, 546 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1976). “00 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917 . Also on that date, appellant requested permission to appeal in forma pauperis.”
Diane Rodgers, on Behalf of Sharon Jones, A/K/A Sharon Rodgers v. Otis R. Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 790 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1986). “3 In Wrenn we noted: The Supreme Court has held, with respect to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1917 , that untimely payment of a filing fee does not vitiate the validity of a notice of appeal.”
Peter J. WRENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Am. CAST IRON PIPE Co., Defendant-Appellee, 575 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1978). “D. 187 (S.D.Iowa 1972). Third, the district court mistakenly assumed that timely payment of a filing fee is a jurisdictional requisite.”
Joseph Raymond Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 813 F.2d 917 (9th Cir. 1987). “The clerk’s decision to handle the overpayment by returning the complaint along with the check was one based merely on the convenience and smooth operation of the clerk’s office.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.