TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bochenek v. Germann

Michael BOCHENEK, by Joseph Bochenek, his Next Friend, Joseph Bochenek and Anna Bochenek v. Leo Otto GERMANN

Bochenek v. Germann, 191 F. Supp. 104 (E.D. Mich. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, E.D. Michigan · Federal District Courts
Decided
November 29, 1960
Docket
No. Civ. Nos. 19397-19399
Judges
Kaess
Citations
191 F. Supp. 104

Opinion of the Court — Kaess

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

KAESS, District Judge.

Three damage suits were filed and later consolidated arising from the same incident. After a trial by jury Michael Bochenek, by next friend Joseph Boche-nék, who had sued for damages totalling $100,000, recovered $4,000; Anna Boche-nek, who had sued for damages totalling $15,000, recovered $1,000; Joseph Boche-nek, who had sued for damages totalling $25,000, did not recover any amount due to a mistrial, as the jury could not agree on a decision. The last mentioned ease has been reset for trial in this court.

Defendant asks that plaintiffs’ costs be denied and that defendant’s costs be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (b), which provides:

“Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any set-off or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.”

The purpose and effect of this statute is clarified by its legislative history, which states (1958 U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, page 3099) that:

“In deciding whether to deny costs and/or impose costs on the plaintiff, the court will undoubtedly take into consideration whether the amount claimed was made in good faith or whether it was made simply to get into Federal court.”

This court believes that the plaintiffs did act in good faith when they claimed an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of $10,000.

It Is Therefore Ordered that defendant’s motion Be Denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1964: 11983: 11984: 219642026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dr. Franklin Perkins School v. Freeman741 F.2d 1503 (7th Cir. 1984)
  2. Kinsey v. Weatherly572 F. Supp. 841 (N.D. Ga. 1983)
  3. Lutz v. McNair233 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Va. 1964)
  4. Dr. Franklin Perkins School, and v. Dr741 F.2d 1503 (7th Cir. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Dr. Franklin Perkins School, and v. Dr741 F.2d 1503 (7th Cir. 1984)
  2. Dr. Franklin Perkins School v. Freeman741 F.2d 1503 (7th Cir. 1984)
  3. Kinsey v. Weatherly572 F. Supp. 841 (N.D. Ga. 1983)
  4. Lutz v. McNair233 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Va. 1964)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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