Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Scholla v. Scholla (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1953)
- Goozh v. Capitol Souvenir Co., Inc. (D.C. 1983)
- Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (2d Cir. 1943)
- Shima v. Brown (D.C. Cir. 1943)
- Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co. of North America (3d Cir. 1935)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is a cross-appeal taken by the defendants below in Hammett v. Minar et al., 60 App. D. C. 286, 53 F.(2d) 144, just decided.
The only question presented for decision is based upon the allowance of costs to the plaintiff while dismissing her bill of complaint, which question was presented by brief and argument at the bar.
-d . ,, ,, o , . .. But the allowance of costs m equity is ,, , , a matter of discretion with the court, not usually reviewa.ble on appeal, and the court below twice considered the question of these costs, and twice came to the same eonclusion regarding them; on the second occasion saying, “The adjudication of costs against the defendants in my former memorandum was not a clerical error, but intentional. I think that the Court is fully justified under the facts of this ease in so adjudging costs.”
And in our disposition of the main ease on its merits, we have directed that the costs be paid by the defendants.
So much of the decree appealed from in this cross-appeal awarding costs to plaintiff is affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.