Several respondents moved to reassess costs in this case. The respondents were Gissel Packing Co., Inc., Heck’s Inc., General Steel Products, Inc., and Crown Flex of North Carolina, Inc. The Court considered whether costs should remain assessed against these respondents. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of the motions.
Issue
Whether the respondents’ motions to reassess costs should be granted or denied, and against which respondents costs should be assessed.
Rule
The Court may grant or deny motions to reassess costs and may direct that no costs be assessed against particular respondents while assessing specified amounts against others.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
After a Supreme Court judgment in a labor dispute, three employer respondents from Cleveland, Ohio, file motions to reassess costs. Lakeview Plastics, Inc. and North Harbor Foods, Inc. file a joint motion, while Summit Ridge Logistics, Inc. files separately.
Which disposition is most consistent with the Court's authority as reflected in the opinion?
Explanation. The opinion shows that the Court may evaluate respondents separately on motions to reassess costs. It denied reassessment as to some respondents, granted it as to others, and ordered that no costs be assessed against those whose motion was granted while specifying amounts against others. (Derived from Gissel Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)