Humboldt Lovelock Irr. Light & Power Co. v. Smith
District Court, D. Nevada
1Per curiam
Following the filing of the opinion and decision of this Court dismissing plaintiff’s bill of complaint, 25 F.Supp. 571, 575, defendant and interveners severally filed cost bills, to which plaintiff filed objections, which cost bills were allowed and taxed by the clerk of the court. Plaintiff has moved to re-tax the costs. The objections interposed to the cost bills include the following ground: that costs are not allowable where suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In the decision heretofore rendered it was held: “The complaint does not set out a substantial federal question and,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Citizens' Bank v. CannonSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Blacklock v. SmallSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Smyth v. Asphalt Belt Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jones v. City of OpelikaAlabama Court of Appeals · 1941
- Neet v. HolmesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1940