Ewing v. Gardner
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Department of Treasury v. Ivy (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
- United States v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., Associated Air Transport, Inc. v. United States (5th Cir. 1960)
- People v. Harter Packing Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)
- Anderson v. United States (9th Cir. 1953)
- Guarino v. Celebrezze (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1963)
- James River Apartments, Inc. v. Federal Housing Administration (District Court, D. Maryland 1955)
- Guardianship Estate of Keffeler v. DSHS (Wash. 2001)
- Guardianship Estate of Keffeler v. Department of Social & Health Services (Wash. 2001)
- The Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company v. Fred Webb Iii (6th Cir. 1995)
- Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Webb (6th Cir. 1995)
- In re Vary Estate (Mich. 1977)
- Department of Treasury v. Ivy (Mich. 1977)
- Citizens Committee for Columbia River v. Callaway (9th Cir. 1974)
- Lucas v. Mayo (District Court, S.D. Texas 1963)
- Philip Krupp v. Federal Housing Administration (1st Cir. 1961)
- United States v. John McShain, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1961)
- United States v. Mahlon C. Mohr (4th Cir. 1960)
- Lichter Foundation, Inc. v. Russell A. Welch, Collector of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1959)
- Mohr v. United States (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1959)
- National Labor Relations Board v. Duval Jewelry Company of Miami, Inc. (5th Cir. 1957)
- Black v. Boyd (6th Cir. 1957)
- Black v. Boyd (6th Cir. 1957)
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. Board of Education (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 1956)
- Hurd v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1955)
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
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. 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.