Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

SAN ANTONIO v. HOTELS.COM, L. P. 

Opinion of the Court 

costs relating to appeals.  Subdivision (a) provides a series
of default rules that govern “unless the law provides or the 
court orders otherwise.”  Under these default rules: 

“(1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against 

the appellant, unless the parties agree otherwise;

“(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against 

the appellant;

“(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against 

the appellee; 

“(4)  if  a  judgment  is  affirmed  in  part,  reversed  in 
part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed only as the
court orders.” 

The remaining subdivisions of the Rule deal with related
issues.  Subdivision (b) limits costs for or against Federal
Government litigants to those “authorized by law.”  Subdi-
vision (c) directs the courts of appeals to fix a maximum rate
for taxing the costs of briefs, appendices, and (where appli-
cable) the original record.  Subdivision (d) provides the pro-
cedure for seeking certain appellate costs, filing objections 
to those costs, and preparing an itemized statement of costs
for insertion in the mandate.  And subdivision (e) lists four
categories of “costs on appeal” that “are taxable in the dis-
trict court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under
this rule.” 

This case concerns one of the categories of costs that are
taxable in the district court under subdivision (e): “premi-
ums  paid  for  a  bond  or  other  security  to  preserve  rights
pending appeal.”  Fed. Rule App. Proc. 39(e)(3).  These costs 
arise because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gener-
ally  stay  the  execution  or  enforcement  of  a  district  court 
judgment  for  only  30 days  after  its  entry.    Fed.  Rule  Civ. 
Proc. 62(a).  Unless a further stay is granted, the prevailing 
party can attempt to execute on that judgment while an ap-
peal is pending.  See 12 J. Moore, D. Coquillette, G. Joseph, 
G. Vairo, & C. Varner, Moore’s Federal Practice §62.02 (3d