28 U.S.C. § 1924
Verification of bill of costs
Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by his duly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 161
cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Gary Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2014).
Gary Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2014). “On January 2, 2013, the district court awarded Mellon $836.82 from Reece without mentioning Mellon’s failure to file an affidavit verifying the costs were necessary and reasonable.”
Dullmaier v. Xanterra Parks & Resorts, 883 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2018). “First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Xanterra's costs request complied with the applicable costs statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1924 , as well as the District of Wyoming's Local Rules.”
San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L. P., 593 U.S. 330 (2021). “This process requires more than a “min- isterial order,” as San Antonio would have it, because the district court will ensure that the amount of appellate costs requested is “correct,” 28 U. S. C. §1924 , and that the cost submissions otherwise comply with the relevant rules and…”
Eugene A. Wahl & Vibra Screw Feeders, Inc., & Cross-Appellees v. Carrier Mfg. Co., Inc., & Cross-Appellant, 511 F.2d 209 (7th Cir. 1975). “28 U.S.C. § 1924 requires that before costs are taxed, they must be verified by an affidavit that states the items are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.”
State of Illinois v. Sangamo Constr. Co. & J. L. Simmons Co., Inc., Defendants, 657 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1981). “§ 1920 (2), defendants claim the district court abused its discretion in awarding such costs in this case. It is well established that “[t]he charges of the court reporter for transcripts of the trial and of depositions reasonably necessary for use in the case even though not…”
Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Mo. 1985). “28 U.S.C. § 1924 requires that before costs are taxed, they must be verified by an affidavit that states the items are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.”
Kilborn v. Haun (In Re Haun), 396 B.R. 522 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2008). “1(c)(9) (referencing the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1924 which, in turn, requires the taxed costs be “necessarily incurred in the case”).”
Alexander Mfg., Inc. Emp. Stock Ownership & Trust v. Illinois Union Ins., 688 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Or. 2010). “1(a)(2) requires that the party seeking costs verify the cost bill as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924 . L.R. 54(a)(2). Under 28 U.”
Ruff v. Cnty. of Kings, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “Rule 54-292(b), Local Rules of Practice, in effect on October 2, 2009, provided: Within ten (10) days after entry of judgment or order under which costs may be claimed, the prevailing party may served on all other parties and file with the Clerk a bill of costs conforming to 28…”
Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2012). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1924 . This is not to say that all fee-shifting statutes must be interpreted identically.”
Rommy Revson, Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant, Judd Burstein v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee, 221 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2000). “99-9443, Revson appeals from so much of the supplemental judgment as awards costs against her, contending (a) that she was not afforded adequate notice and opportunity to object, and (b) that Cinque & Cinque failed to submit an affidavit as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924 (1994) to…”
Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, Inc. v. City of Bryan, 421 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2005). “Analysis Appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion in awarding costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1924 because the City’s motion did not comply with the requirements of the statute and local rules.”
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.