28 U.S.C. § 1925
Admiralty and maritime cases
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the allowance and taxation of costs in admiralty and maritime cases shall be prescribed by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2022 · leading case: First Bank of Marietta, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant-Appelle
First Bank of Marietta, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant-Appelle (2002)
“37 and 28 U.S.C. § 1925 against plaintiff’s attorney “for repeated discovery violations”); Johnson v.”
Bunker Holdings Ltd. v. Yang Ming Liberia Corp. (2018)
“The panel wrote that this result was undesirable, but a return to an earlier practice awarding such costs would require action by Congress or by the Supreme Court pursuant to its delegated rulemaking authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1925 . COUNSEL Briton P. Sparkman (argued) and…”
Carlson v. Palmer (1979)
“Enacted in 1948, 28 U.S.C. § 1925 provides: Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the allowance and taxation of costs in admiralty and maritime cases shall be prescribed by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.”
Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Richardson (1961)
“* * * ” Petitioner contends, however, that this statute does not apply to costs in admiralty by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1925 which vests the rule-making power as to costs in admiralty in the Supreme Court.”
Friedman v. Ganassi (1988)
“Additional examples include 28 U.S.C. § 1925 (costs in admiralty cases); Fed.”
Katz v. Cie Generale Transatlantique (1960)
“” As amended in 1956, the statute states that the witness “shall receive” attendance and mileage, and “shall he entitled to * * * $8.00 per day for expenses of subsistence including the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the place of attendance.”
Isthmian Lines, Inc. v. Moran (1968)
“The rescisión of Admiralty Rule 47 has been accomplished both by Act of Congress and by order of the Supreme Court. II. Since the question of the allowance of traveling expenses of the witness Trygve Hille is discretionary, I now consider the facts and circumstances relative to…”
Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1964)
“28 U.S.C. § 1925 . Revised Statute § 824, mentioned in the Title Guaranty case, supra, has become, with other sections 28 U.”
Roberts v. Lemos (1981)
“1979), the court held 28 U.S.C. § 1925 incorporated § 1821’s limitation on witness fees in admiralty cases.”
Molinos v. The Rio Grande (1955)
“Should the respondents herein desire to take the deposition de bene esse of a witness in New York directly dealing with the allegations of desertion, this would not be deemed an unnecessary expense. If the evidence of this witness reveals that the purpose of the deposition is…”
Nasuti v. Department of State (2017)
“We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1925 (a)(9). II Under 5 U.S.C.”
Buono v. Kijakazi (2022)
“Any revised financial affidavit must be completed on the court’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1925 and Financial Affidavit in Support of Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.”
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.