28 U.S.C. § 1919
Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Whenever any action or suit is dismissed in any district court, the Court of International Trade, or the Court of Federal Claims for want of jurisdiction, such court may order the payment of just costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126
cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Laufer v. Mann Hosp., 996 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2021).
Laufer v. Mann Hosp., 996 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2021). “The district court dismissed Laufer’s suit, finding no standing for want of an injury in fact.”
Citizens for a Better Env't v. The Steel Co., Also Known as Chicago Steel & Pickling Co., 230 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2000). “Although cbe lost because the judiciary could not redress any injury it suffered from The Steel Company’s delay in filing the required reports, The Steel Company’s injury (the costs of defending this litigation) assuredly may be redressed by an order requiring cbe to reimburse…”
Johns-Manville Corp. & Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. The United States, 893 F.2d 324 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Section 1919, title 28, authorizes district courts and the Court of International Trade to award costs in cases dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
United States Ex Rel. Grynberg v. Praxair, Inc., 389 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2004). “2d 280 (1992), the Seventh Circuit acknowledged statutes such as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1919 and 1447(c) 19 specifically “permit awards of litigation expenses in suits that federal courts are not authorized to decide on the merits” and the “[u]se of this fee-shifting power has been…”
Propat Int'l Corp. v. RPost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “§ 1927 , which authorizes such relief if an attorney “multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously”; and (3) the court should have awarded costs to RPost under 28 U.S.C. § 1919 , which allows a court to “order the payment of just costs” whenever a suit is…”
Hygienics Direct Co. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 33 F. App'x 621 (3rd Cir. 2002). “On October 12, 2000, Medline, CHCA, and the Alliance filed a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the District Court and moved to assess costs, fees and expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1919 , 1920, 1927, and the court’s inherent power.”
Ali v. Prestige Window & Door Installation, LLC., 626 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2009). “This case is not controlled by Federal Rule Civil Procedure 54, but rather by 28 U.S.C. § 1919 , as it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no judgment was awarded to either party.”
Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992). “14, acknowledging 28 U. S. C. § 1919 (authorizing “payment of just costs” in any action or suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) and 28 U.”
gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1919 (authorizing a district court to award just costs when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).”
Castillo Grand, LLC v. Sheraton Operating Corp., 719 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013). “The first is whether the “just costs” authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1919 when an action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction include attorney’s fees.”
Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Liebreich, 98 F. App'x 979 (5th Cir. 2004). “, (1) the district court’s refusal to award the Estate attorney’s fees and costs under the contractual fee-shifting provision; (2) the denial of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1919 ; (3) the denial of costs authorized under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for the RTC I appeal;…”
In Re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998). “at 2455 -56 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1919 ). In Willy v. Coastal Corp.”
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.