Pelzer v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

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

• “[C]opying, postage, and fax expenses are not typically awarded, as they are viewed as ‘subsumed within the overhead allowance included in the attorney’s hourly fee.’”
• eliminating hotel expense from bill of costs where attorneys were residents of the city in which the trial took place
• eliminating expert fees from attorney’s bill of costs where “[p]laintiff has not demonstrated her case was extraordinary, or her experts’ testimony and reports played a critical role in the jury’s verdict.”
• declining to reduce an award of costs when it was “impossible to assign specific costs to certain claims” because the plaintiff’s “successful claims were factually and legally interrelated with her unsuccessful claims”
• eliminating investigation service expenses from bill of costs in absence of “extraordinary circumstances”
• “the jury’s verdict demonstrates [Pelzer’s] overall success was limited in comparison with the scope of the litigation as a whole.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).