U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 123— FEES AND COSTS

28 U.S.C. § 1920

Taxation of costs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 955; Pub. L. 95–539, § 7, Oct. 28, 1978, 92 Stat. 2044; Pub. L. 110–406, § 6, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4292.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 9a(a) and 830 (R.S. § 983; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 5a, as added Jan. 20, 1944, ch. 3, § 1, 58 Stat. 5).

For distribution of other provisions of section 9a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., see table at end of reviser’s notes.

Word “may” was substituted for “shall” before “tax as costs,” in view of Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, providing for allowance of costs to the prevailing party as of course “unless the court otherwise directs”.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Par. (2). Pub. L. 110–406, § 6(1), substituted “for printed or electronically recorded transcripts” for “of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript”.

Par. (4). Pub. L. 110–406, § 6(2), substituted “the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are” for “copies of papers”.

1978—Par. (6). Pub. L. 95–539 added par. (6).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–539 effective Oct. 28, 1978, see section 10(a) of Pub. L. 95–539, set out as a note under section 602 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5,792 cases (2,661 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006). · cites it 15× “” This language simply adds reasonable attorney’s fees to the list of recoverable costs set out in 28 U. S. C. §1920 , the general statute covering taxation of costs, which is strictly limited by §1821.”
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012). · cites it 13× “Argued February 21, 2012—Decided May 21, 2012 Title 28 U. S. C. §1920 , as amended by the Court Interpreters Act, in- cludes “compensation of interpreters” among the costs that may be awarded to prevailing parties in federal-court lawsuits.”
John Draper v. D. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “Treating a cost award as part of the judgment is consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , which provides that “[a] bill of costs shall be filed .”
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980). · cites it 10× “A Section 1927 provides that lawyers who multiply court proceedings vexatiously may be assessed the excess "costs" they create. The provision, however, does not define the critical word.”
Cbt Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 737 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 22× “In the present appeal by CBT, we hold that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statutory provision governing the taxation of costs here, 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (4). We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.”
Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 17× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (4). The district court en *251 tered an order taxing only the costs of converting electronic files to non-editable formats, and transferring files onto CDs.”
DeSisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of Howey-In-The-Hills, 718 F. Supp. 906 (M.D. Fla. 1989). · cites it 26× “12 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , 28 U.S.C. § 1821 , and 42 U.”
Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. California, Inc., 606 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 12× “The principle issue before us is whether the expense-shifting provision in the FCRA authorizes district courts to award costs that otherwise would be non-taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , which generally authorizes the award of certain specified costs.”
State of Illinois v. Sangamo Constr. Co. & J. L. Simmons Co., Inc., Defendants, 657 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1981). · cites it 14× “There is general confusion regarding the relationship among the various statutes and court rules authorizing an award of costs. Resolution of this confusion requires integration of the cost provisions of Section 4 of the Clayton Act, Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil…”
ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 18× “30 as costs, under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , against Appellants jointly and severally.”
Sterling Fed. Sys., Inc. v. Daniel S. Goldin, Adm'r, Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 24× “§ 759 (f)(5)(C)(i) (1988) authorizes an award of only those costs that a federal court may allow under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 , 1821 (1988) and attorney’s fees, we vacate the decision and remand for a redetermination of entitlement.”
O Centro Espirita Beneficente União Do Vegs in U.S. v. Duke, 343 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 12× “The Defendants also argue that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and D.N.M. L.R. Civ. 54.”
Show all 5,792 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) — 9 cases
Thibodeau v. ADT Sec. Servs. (S.D. Cal. 2019).
Icool USA, Inc. v. Mbrb Sales, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2020).
Ariza v. Untuckit, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2020).
Easterwood v. Carnival Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2021).
Kuhl (S.D. Fla. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) — 12 cases
Mota v. Univ. of Texas Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2001).
Calnetics Corp. & Meier-Line, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., (Five Cases), 532 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1976).
Budd-Falen Law Offices, P.C. v. Rocky Mountain Recovery, Inc., 2005 WY 77 (Wyo. 2005).
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Szarabajka, 330 F. Supp. 1202 (N.D. Ill. 1971).
Ryan v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 18 F.R.D. 206 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3) — 1 case
Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 883 (N.D. Ill. 1974).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) — 6 cases
Florida Pawnbrokers & Secondhand Dealers Ass'n v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 711 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 62 F.R.D. 98 (W.D. Ky. 1973).
Parallel Networks Licensing v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Progressive Rail Inc. v. CSX Transp., Inc. (E.D. Ky. 2021).
East Coast Test Prep LLC v. Allnurses.com, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2019).
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.