Benda v. Fana

74 Citing cases

  1. Keener v. Buehrer

    2017 Ohio 7749 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    not synonymous with expenses unless expressly made so by statute." Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 263, 39 O.O.2d 410, 413, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201. * * *Videotape testimony

  2. Maynard v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

    63 Ohio Misc. 2d 25 (Ohio Com. Pleas 1993)   Cited 1 times

    One of the cases which the court in Jones cited as its authority was Terry v. Burger (1966), 6 Ohio App.2d 53, 35 O.O.2d 156, 216 N.E.2d 383. This case was effectively overruled by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 39 O.O.2d 410, 227 N.E.2d 197. Benda cited the dissenting opinion of Judge J.J.P. Corrigan in the Terry case as "correctly assessing this difficult problem." Judge Corrigan in his dissent points to a number of examples showing how meaningless the test of "necessary and vital to the litigation" is.

  3. Kilgore v. Chrysler Corp.

    92 Ohio St. 3d 184 (Ohio 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Discussing certain costs as a “litigation expense”

    Appellants find relevance in this court's statements in Williams that "expenses" and "costs" are not synonymous, " `unless expressly made so by statute.' " 71 Ohio St.3d at 643, 646 N.E.2d at 832, quoting Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 263, 39 O.O.2d 410, 413, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201. Appellants characterize travel expenses as nonreimbursable "expenses" rather than "costs."

  4. Vassil v. Able Fence Guard Rail, Inc.

    81 Ohio App. 3d 533 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    " Id. at 544, 41 O.O. at 88, 90 N.E.2d at 596. See, also, Smith v. Smith (1952), 93 Ohio App. 294, 51 O.O. 45, 114 N.E.2d 480; Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 39 O.O.2d 410, 227 N.E.2d 197. In recent decisions, however, Ohio courts have shown willingness to expand recovery of costs to those expenses outside the traditional meaning of costs.

  5. In re Election of Nov. 6

    62 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 1991)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that the R.C. 2323.51 award of attorney fees to a party harmed by frivolous conduct in a civil action does not apply to election-contest cases because an award under that statute could not be made at the trial of the case

    Even with the word "all" placed before "costs" in R.C. 3515.09, the key word in the statute is "costs." Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 263, 39 O.O.2d 410, 413, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201 ("costs" and "all costs" synonymous). "Costs are generally defined as the statutory fees to which officers, witnesses, jurors, and others are entitled for their services in an action and which the statutes authorize to be taxed and included in the judgment."

  6. Coleman v. Jagniszcak

    662 N.E.2d 91 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    Vance v. Roedersheimer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 555, 597 N.E.2d 153, 156. In Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 39 O.O.2d 410, 227 N.E.2d 197, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "costs" are those items that are fixed and taxable according to statute. The Supreme Court has adhered to this position and, in Vance, supra, stated:

  7. Requester v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Family Servs.

    2019 Ohio 476 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019)

    Even with the word "all" placed before "costs" in R.C. 3515.09, the key word in the statute is "costs." Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 263, 39 O.O.2d 410, 413, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201 ("costs" and "all costs" synonymous). "Costs are generally defined as the statutory fees to which officers, witnesses, jurors, and others are entitled for their services in an action and which the statutes authorize to be taxed and included in the judgment."

  8. Bank of N.S. v. Clarke

    Civil Action No. 2015-0034 (D.V.I. Dec. 18, 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Finding 16.70 hours billed was reasonable in uncontested foreclosure case

    The Court in Terrell observed: "It is well-established that when a statute authorizes taxation of costs [referring to 5 V.I.C. § 541(a)], 'costs are not synonymous with expenses unless expressly made so by statute.'" Id. at 591 n.14 (quoting Benda v. Fana, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ohio 1967)). The Supreme Court further explained that "limiting 'costs' to what is specifically provided for in a fee-shifting statute is necessary in order to avoid 'absurd situations' that the legislature could not have intended, such as placing a litigant 'with the burden of paying exorbitant professional witness fees which may very well exceed the amount of the verdict itself.'"

  9. Kennedy Funding, Inc. v. Oracle Bus. Devs., LLC

    Civil Action No. 2012-0009 (D.V.I. May. 1, 2017)

    The Court in Terrell observed: "It is well-established that when a statute authorizes taxation of costs [referring to 5 V.I.C. § 541(a)], 'costs are not synonymous with expenses unless expressly made so by statute.'" Id. at 591 n.14 (quoting Benda v. Fana, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ohio 1967)). The Supreme Court further explained that "limiting 'costs' to what is specifically provided for in a fee-shifting statute is necessary in order to avoid 'absurd situations' that the legislature could not have intended, such as placing a litigant 'with the burden of paying exorbitant professional witness fees which may very well exceed the amount of the verdict itself.'"

  10. Bank of Nova Scotia v. Brooks

    Civil Action No. 2014-0062 (D.V.I. Mar. 14, 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Awarding attorney's fees of $1,770.00 in an uncontested foreclosure case

    The Court in Terrell observed: "It is well-established that when a statute authorizes taxation of costs [referring to 5 V.I.C. § 541(a)], 'costs are not synonymous with expenses unless expressly made so by statute.'" Id. at 591 n.14 (quoting Benda v. Fana, 227 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ohio 1967)). The Supreme Court further explained that "limiting 'costs' to what is specifically provided for in a fee-shifting statute is necessary in order to avoid 'absurd situations' that the legislature could not have intended, such as placing a litigant 'with the burden of paying exorbitant professional witness fees which may very well exceed the amount of the verdict itself.'"