Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Ewing v. Gardner

Ewing v. Gardner, 341 U.S. 321 (1951)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1951-05-07
Topic
general

Per Curiam. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The sole question presented by the petition is the validity of the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the judgment rendered against the petitioner for costs by the District Court. There being no express statutory authority for the allowance of costs to the respondent, such an award of costs is precluded by 28 U. S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ewing v. Gardner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
30 opinions
EWINGv. GARDNER,341 U.S. 321(1951)
71 S.Ct. 684
EWING, FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR,v. GARDNER, EXECUTOR.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
No. 621.
Decided May 7, 1951.
Under28 U.S.C. § 2412(a), costs may not be assessed against the Federal Security Administrator in a suit brought against him in his official capacity, when there is no express statutory authority for the allowance of such costs.185 F.2d 781, reversed in part.
In a suit against the Federal Security Administrator
in his official capacity, the District Court awarded a
judgment and assessed costs against the Administrator.
88 F. Supp. 315. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
185 F.2d 781. Certiorari granted and judgmentreversed,
insofar as it relates to the taxation of costs against
petitioner.
Solicitor General Perlmanfor petitioner.Theodore F. Gardnerfor respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The sole question presented by the petition is the validity of the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the judgment rendered against the petitioner for costs by the District Court. There being no express statutory authority for the allowance of costs to the respondent, such an award of costs is precluded by28 U.S.C. § 2412(a). The judgment of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it relates to the taxation of costs against the petitioner, is therefore reversed.Page 322