Legal Opinion

Behr v. Baker

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1931No. June, 1931, Docket No. 67, Calendar No. 35,662PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RETAXATION OF COSTS.

I think the rule (Court Rule No. 5, § 7) is valid under which the premium paid for the stay bond was taxed. General rule making power is conferred upon this court by the Constitution (article 7, § 5); and, further, by legislative enactment "the regulation of costs" by rule is specifically left with the court. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13540.

The amount of the taxable costs will remain as determined by the clerk.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, FEAD, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred with NORTH, J.

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. Native Village of NunapitchukAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  2. People v. StanleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Ware v. City of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Tomlinson v. TomlinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Holding Corp. v. Mortgage Cont. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API