 |
| This case isn't about coffee. I just like coffee. |
By Elizabeth Kruska
There’s not a lot to this particular opinion, as it’s an entry order on a pretty discrete issue.
Briefly, if a party appeals to the Supreme Court and does not prevail, the other party may seek costs. The party seeking costs has to make its request within 14 days of the judgment. That party can ask for more time, but it’s got to be a pretty good reason. Let’s suppose there’s a government shutdown and mail isn’t moving. That’s probably a good reason. “I forgot,” probably isn’t a good reason.
Anyway, in this case, there were a couple moving pieces that might have made things a little bit confusing. Originally, this case was heard and an opinion on the merits was issued on August 17, 2018, reversing and remanding the trial court’s original decision. There were some post-judgment motions filed, which were granted. None of those motions sought to extend the time to file for costs.
In October 2018 the appellant filed a motion seeking reimbursement of their appeal costs. This is what’s at issue in this entry order.
The motion was denied because the motion was filed outside the 14-day period. The appellant took the position that the fact of the other motions, including a motion for rehearing, were pending, that should have extended the deadline for filing for costs.
Although on one hand this would make sense, it’s not within the language of the statute. Unfortunately for the appellants, their motion for costs was denied as untimely.
There’s not a lot to this particular opinion, as it’s an entry order on a pretty discrete issue.
Briefly, if a party appeals to the Supreme Court and does not prevail, the other party may seek costs. The party seeking costs has to make its request within 14 days of the judgment. That party can ask for more time, but it’s got to be a pretty good reason. Let’s suppose there’s a government shutdown and mail isn’t moving. That’s probably a good reason. “I forgot,” probably isn’t a good reason.
Anyway, in this case, there were a couple moving pieces that might have made things a little bit confusing. Originally, this case was heard and an opinion on the merits was issued on August 17, 2018, reversing and remanding the trial court’s original decision. There were some post-judgment motions filed, which were granted. None of those motions sought to extend the time to file for costs.
In October 2018 the appellant filed a motion seeking reimbursement of their appeal costs. This is what’s at issue in this entry order.
The motion was denied because the motion was filed outside the 14-day period. The appellant took the position that the fact of the other motions, including a motion for rehearing, were pending, that should have extended the deadline for filing for costs.
Although on one hand this would make sense, it’s not within the language of the statute. Unfortunately for the appellants, their motion for costs was denied as untimely.
Comments
Post a Comment