28 U.S.C. § 2520
Repealed. Pub. L. 106–518, title II, § 207, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2414]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1979–2014 · leading case: Rozell v. Ross-Holst
Rozell v. Ross-Holst (2008)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 2520 (b). Unlike Title VII, however, the ECPA is not a “prevailing party” statute.”
Lee v. United States (1995)
“Title 28 U.S.C. § 2520 requires that the court impose a filing fee not exceeding $120.”
Smith v. Nixon (1979)
“The private damage provision of Title III appears at 28 U.S.C. § 2520 (1976). . JA 83a (Amended Complaint).”
Huff v. Spaw (2014)
“Having now determined that Plaintiffs cannot bring a cause of action against Defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), there is no longer a need to shield any of the documents filed in this case from the public.”
Strock v. Vanhorn (1996)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 2520 (authorizing the imposition of a filing fee of $120); 28 U.”
Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States (1989)
“The result was accomplished not by adding the Court of Claims to section 2412, but by repealing former 28 U.S.C. § 2520 (d), which had limited cost awards in the Court of Claims.”
Higgins v. NMI Enterprises, Inc. (2013)
“28 U.S.C. § 2520 (e). . 388 Fed.Appx. at 450 (citing Sparshott v.”
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.