Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer v. Robinson

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 2d 367·1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1503·329 P.2d 318
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 1958Civ. 22932California527 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shinn, J.

Upon a former appeal by Oppenheimer respondent Southern Pacific Company filed a printed brief which, exclusive of covers and index, comprised 14 pages. Having prevailed on the appeal the company filed a cost bill claiming $100.67 as the cost of the brief. Oppenheimer, by motion to tax costs, objected to the charge as excessive. The motion was denied and he appeals.

The appeal does not present a question of law. Rule 26(c) Rules on Appeal allows as reasonable costs “the reasonable cost of printing or reproduction of briefs by other process of duplication.” Prior to amendment of the rule as of January 1, 1951, the amount chargeable for briefs was limited to $100 to any one party. Since then the only limitation has been that the amount claimed must be reasonable.

By denying the motion the court determined from the evidence before it that the charge was not unreasonable. That was a factual decision which is binding upon this court unless the evidence compelled a contrary conclusion. Neither the trial court nor this court has judicial knowledge of what would have been a reasonable charge in Los Angeles County for printing the brief in question.

The trial court’s ruling has support…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.