We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
United States: Supreme Court Of The United States Holds That Cost Of Translating Foreign Documents Does Not Fall Within The Scope Of 28 U. S. C. § 1920(6)
On May 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
its opinion in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.,
which concerned whether the cost of translating foreign documents
is a taxable cost under 28 U. S. C. § 1920(6). In that case,
the plaintiff, a professional Japanese baseball player, alleged he
sustained personal injuries when his leg broke through a wooden
deck on the defendant's resort property. He sought damages
for lost income from contracts he could not honor as a result of
the injuries. The trial court granted the defendant's
motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff
offered no evidence that the defendant had notice of a defect in
the wooden deck or otherwise failed to exercise reasonable
care. The trial court also awarded the defendant costs, which
included the cost of translating Japanese documents into
English. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
summary judgment and the costs awarded to the defendant.
The question before the Court was whether the phrase
"compensation of interpreters" extends to translation of
documents. Under § 1920(6), the "cost of
interpreters," among other items, may be recovered as a
taxable cost by a prevailing party. The Court held that the
term "interpreter" as used in the statute does not
include the cost of translating foreign documents. In so
holding, it reasoned that the "the ordinary and technical
meanings of [the term] 'interpreter,' as well as the
statutory context in which the word is found, lead to the
conclusion that § 1920(6), does not apply to translators of
written materials."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In moving for summary judgment, Nike argued that under its policies and procedures a credit card customer could not have reasonably perceived Nike's request for a ZIP code as a condition to completing a credit card transaction.
Telephone subscribers who knowingly release their phone numbers to a business will be deemed to have given their invitation or consent to the called at the number which they have given, absent instruction to the contrary.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has enacted a new rule that will prohibit the inclusion of mandatory arbitration provisions and waivers of federal statutory causes of action in consumer mortgage and home equity loan agreements.
A federal court in the Western District of Wisconsin has now expanded the reach of the TCPA beyond auto/predictive dialers, holding in Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA that the federal statute may apply to calls even if an auto/predictive dialer is not used to initiate them.
The CFPB took the first step in enforcing the "abusive" standard under the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition of unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices by filing a federal action against a Florida debt-relief company.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced a joint law enforcement effort in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving a debt-settlement business and its principals.
In a recent case involving Papa John’s Pizza, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia provided some contour to just what "absent instructions to the contrary" means.
Just two months after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Canning v. National Labor Relations Board that President Barack Obama's January 2012 appointment of three new members of the National Labor Relations Board was "constitutionally invalid," a split panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has followed suit, invalidating another NLRB action.
