Montell v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Contempt Statute was “intended” to permit the court to award the “unavoidable expenditures” that an aggrieved party incurred in attempting to “secure the benefits” of the proceedings
• comparing the term “costs,” which has a “defined and well-understood meaning,” with the term “expenses,” which “is not so restricted, and may include[] items of expenditure in the prosecution of an action or proceeding,” including “a reasonable attorney’s fee”
• comparing the term “costs,” which has a “defined and well-understood meaning,” with the term “expenses,” which “is not so restricted, and may include[] items of expenditure in the prosecution of an action or proceeding,” including “a reasonable attorney’s fee”
• current version at Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-311 (LexisNexis 2012

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).