Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/26/2013

Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

Citations

  • 133 S. Ct. 1166
  • 185 L. Ed. 2d 242
  • 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1859
  • 568 U.S. 371
  • 81 U.S.L.W. 4135
  • 84 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1486
  • 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 60

About this case

Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not modify Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).[1] [2]

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx_v._General_Revenue_Corp.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Olivea Marx filed suit, alleging that General Revenue Corporation (GRC) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by harassing and falsely threatening her in order to collect on a debt. The federal District Court ruled against Marx and awarded GRC costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which gives district courts discretion to award costs to prevailing defendants "[u]nless a federal statute... provides otherwise."[1]

Marx sought to vacate the award, arguing that the court's discretion under Rule 54(d)(1) was displaced by the FDCA in 15 U. S. C. §1692k(a)(3), which provides that, "[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs." The District Court rejected Marx's argument.[1]

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that costs are allowed under the Rule and concluding that nothing in the statute's text, history, or purpose indicates that it was meant to displace the Rule.[1]

Opinion of the court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx_v._General_Revenue_Corp.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the court")

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding missing information . (August 2025)

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on February 26, 2013.[1]

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the plain text of Rule 52(b)(1) should have dictated the outcome of this case. It says the default procedure specified within the rule applies unless another statute "provides otherwise." Because the FDCA included a costs portion with relevant language, she would have held that the FDCA's text controlled. She criticized the majority opinion for rendering statutory language "meaningless."[2]

Subsequent developments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx_v._General_Revenue_Corp.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Subsequent developments")

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it . (August 2025)

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx_v._General_Revenue_Corp.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")

  1. Jump up to: 1 2 3 4 5 Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013).
  2. Jump up to: 1 2 Mann, Ronald (February 28, 2013). "Opinion analysis: Court holds losers responsible for costs of debt-collection disputes" . SCOTUSblog. Retrieved August 26, 2025.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx_v._General_Revenue_Corp.&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court . As a work of the U.S. federal government , the text is in the **public domain **.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marx_v._General_Revenue_Corp.&oldid=1351981178 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Oral argument

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that the canon against surplusage had “considerably less force” because “no interpretation [gave] effect to every word”
  • concluding that Congress's inclusion of an explicit limitation in one statute \caution[ed] against\ inferring a similar limitation into a different statute where none was mentioned
  • holding that although the “cannon against surplusage is not an absolute rule,” it is “generally presumed that statutes do not contain surplusage”
  • recognizing that the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon applies when it is “fair to suppose that Congress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no”
  • recognizing that the expressio unius est exclu-sio alterius canon applies when it is “fair to suppose that Congress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no”
  • concluding that “the phrase ‘and costs’ would not be superfluous if Congress included it to remove doubt that defendants may recover costs” under the circumstances set forth in the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sotomayor, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, So-Tomayor, Kagan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Other cases named Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.