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
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I do not disagree with the legal principles enunciated in the first sentence in part III of the court’s per curiam. However, I do not fully subscribe to the rationale offered in part II, nor do I agree with the factual findings and judgment stated in the last three sentences in part III.
I continue to adhere to the decision of the panel majority issued pursuant to the Government’s petition for rehearing. I therefore dissent.