28 U.S.C. § 1918
District courts; fines, forfeitures and criminal proceedings
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 822 (R.S. § 974).
Changes were made in phraseology.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1950–2021 · leading case: Ryan v. United States (In Re Ryan), 389 B.R. 710 (9th Cir. BAP 2008).
Ryan v. United States (In Re Ryan), 389 B.R. 710 (9th Cir. BAP 2008). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1918 (b). [2] The essential question, then, is whether these costs of prosecution constitute a "criminal fine.”
United States v. Howard M. Gering, 716 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1983). “23 as costs of prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 1918 (b) (1976). That section provides: “Whenever any conviction for any offense not capital is obtained in a district court, the court may order that the defendant pay the costs of prosecution.”
Hardi v. Mezzanotte, 818 A.2d 974 (D.C. 2003). “Deas concerned whether costs of a mistrial could be taxed under a federal statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1918 (b), to a criminal defendant convicted in a subsequent trial.”
United States v. Bevilacqua, Jr., 447 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2006). “The district court purported to find the authority to award such costs in the statutes permitting taxation of and defining allowable costs, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1918 (b) and 1920. We disagree, reverse, and remand to the district court.”
United States v. William Anthony Pou, United States of Am. v. Joseph Michael Pou, United States of Am. v. Miguel Mondejar, 953 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1992). “William Pou challenges the authority of the District Court to impose costs on an indigent defendant.”
United States v. Isaac N. Burchinal, Jr., United States of Am. v. Russell Jack Kern, United States of Am. v. John Gerard, 657 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1981). “He does not deny that the district court generally has the discretionary authority to tax the costs of prosecution against the defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1918 (b): Whenever any conviction for any offense not capital is obtained in a district court, the court may order that the…”
United States v. Hitachi Am., Ltd., 101 F. Supp. 2d 830 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “II The government filed for costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1918 (a) and contended the statute mandates award of costs upon request.”
United States v. Richard A. Horn, 29 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1994). “Theoretically, costs are similarly taxable against convicted defendants in criminal cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 1918 (b), although the actuality is seldom seen.”
United States v. Ralph M. Chavez, 627 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1980). “] The contrast in the language in § 1918(b) and § 7203 indicated that Congress knew what it was doing in 1924 when it drafted a mandatory provision.”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). “1985), for example, the court held that costs of prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 1918 could be imposed upon an indigent as part of sentencing.”
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). “1985), for example, the court held that costs of prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 1918 could be imposed upon an indigent as part of sentencing.”
United States v. Eduardo Orozco-Prada, Humberto Orozco-Prada, Paul Forand & Mahlon Clark, 732 F.2d 1076 (2d Cir. 1984). “The court concluded that the exhibits were fabrications, and that Eduardo Orozco had some involvement in the use of these false documents. For this reason, the judge enhanced his sentence by levying the costs of prosecution against him.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1918(a) — 1 case
United States v. Erie R. Co., 200 F.2d 411 (6th Cir. 1952).
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.