TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Gay Cottons

WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GAY COTTONS Et Al., Appellees

Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 419 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 6, 1969
Docket
No. 21767_1
Judges
Jertberg, Duniway, Taylor
Citations
419 F.2d 3721969 A.M.C. 22731969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10153

Opinion — Duniway

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:

Appellees, the successful parties on appeal, have timely filed the following cost bill pursuant to Rule 39(c), F.R.App.P.

1. Fee of Clerk for copy of record on appeal $ 25.56 2. Cost of reporter’s transcript 543.40 3. Cost of printing brief for appellees 596.26 4. Proctor’s docket fee. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 (5), 1923 100.00 Total $1,265.21 Item 2 is taxable in the district court. Rule 39(e), F.R.App.P.; Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 9 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 1126 .

Appellant attacks item 3, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1923 (c), which limits to $75.00 the costs allowable for printing briefs in an admiralty appeal where the amount involved exceeds $5,000. However, we think that this limitation was wiped out by Rule 39(c), F.R.App.P. The civil and admiralty rules have been consolidated, and the distinction between civil actions and suits in admiralty has been abolished. Rule 1, F.R.Civ.P. and the Note of the Advisory Committee to that rule, 28 U.S.C.A. The Rules of Appellate Procedure govern all appeals to this court from the district court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2072 provides that “All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect * * *.” Item 3 is proper.

Item 4 is no longer allowable. 28 U.S.C. § 1923 (a) provides for allowing as costs a proctor’s docket fee “in ad *374 miralty appeals.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (5). Rule 12, F.R.App.P. provides for “the docket fee fixed by the Judicial Conference of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1913 .” That section provides “The fees and costs to be charged and collected in each court of appeals shall be prescribed from time to time by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” The Judicial Conference has fixed a uniform docket fee of $25.00. It has further provided that “No other fees for services other than those above prescribed shall be charged or collected. * * *” (See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1913 , Note.) Since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, there is no provision for collecting the proctor’s docket fee in admiralty appeals. We think that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1923 (a) and 1920(5), as they relate to fees on appeal, are no longer of any force or effect by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 2072 .

The appeal in this case was docketed before July 1, 1968, the effective date of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In Volkswagenwerk, supra, we held that it would not work an injustice to apply the new rules in such a case so as to allow the costs of printing briefs. We thought that it was the old rule, denying such costs, that worked an injustice. On the other hand, we think that it would work an injustice to deny the proctor’s docket fee in this case. Appellees were required to pay it when the appeal was taken, and it was then taxable. There is nothing unjust in allowing appellees to recover it here. It does not follow, as appellant argues, that appellees should not recover it because they can now also recover the cost of printing briefs. They paid both.

It is ordered that the Clerk insert in the mandate of this court, pursuant to Rule 39(d), F.R.App.P. items 1, 3 and 4 listed above. Item 2 is disallowed without prejudice to the right of appellees-to make a proper showing before the district court.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1972: 11976: 11981: 11988: 11989: 11994: 11998: 12009: 219722026peak 2009 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Panagiotis Kotsopoulos v. Asturia Shipping Co., S.A., Hadjilias & Co., Ltd., and the S/t Mercury, Her Engines, Etc.467 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1972)
  2. People v. Italian Motorship Ilice534 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1976)
  3. The Exxon Valdez v. Exxon Mobil Corp.568 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009)
  4. McKelvy v. Metal Container Corp.125 F.R.D. 179 (M.D. Fla. 1989)
  5. Rawson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.678 F. Supp. 820 (D. Colo. 1988)
  6. Toner v. Commissioner76 T.C. 217 (Tax Ct. 1981)

Most recent

  1. The Exxon Valdez v. Exxon Mobil Corp.568 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009)
  2. Baker v. Exxon Mobile CorpNo. 04-35182 (9th Cir. June 15, 2009)
  3. Ronald B. Paul v. Farmland Industries, Inc.141 F.3d 1169 (8th Cir. 1998)
  4. Chang v. City of Albany842 F. Supp. 1518 (N.D.N.Y. 1994)
  5. McKelvy v. Metal Container Corp.125 F.R.D. 179 (M.D. Fla. 1989)
  6. Rawson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.678 F. Supp. 820 (D. Colo. 1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Douglas D. Church, 413 F.2d 1126 (9th Cir. 1969) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list