emphasizing that in light of the “powerful” presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, “trial judges have rarely denied costs to a prevailing party whose conduct has not been vexatious when the losing party has been capable of paying such costs”
How later courts described this case
- emphasizing that in light of the “powerful” presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, “trial judges have rarely denied costs to a prevailing party whose conduct has not been vexatious when the losing party has been capable of paying such costs”
- collecting cases from ten federal circuits recognizing that district courts may not disallow prevailing party’s bill of costs in part or in whole without providing justification for its actions
- noting that federal courts “have placed on the unsuccessful parties some burden of showing circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring the prevailing party”
- "Every circuit that has considered the question (ten out of twelve) has not only recognized the presumption [that prevailing parties will obtain costs], but has held that a court may neither deny nor reduce a prevailing party's request for costs without first articulating some good reason for doing so."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TAMM, Circuit Judge, with whom J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
joins, dissenting:
Despite the excellent reasoning set forth in the majority opinion in this case, I nevertheless am of the view that, considering all of the factual circumstances involved in this situation, each side should bear its own costs.