Sam H. Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Company, James L. Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Company

possibility that it is also open broad- Nonetheless, 1239.1

er in section to ex- “indirectly”

tend the reach of word intercorporate

to embrace transactions

which have no nexus the control-

ling shareholder individual other than inescapably

that which flows from his controlling

status as a shareholder car- beyond interpretation

ries us into the

realm of amendment. Into that realm go.'

we are forbidden

Affirmed. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, H.

Sam

v. COMPANY, DRILLING

PENROD Defendant-Appellant. STARNES, tiff-Appellee, L.

James Plain COMPANY, DRILLING

PENROD

Defendant-Appellant. 71-2243,

Nos. 71-2245. Appeals, Court

United States Fifth Circuit.

March May Denied

Rehearing En Banc

1, 1975. example, by corporation. individual 1. For to his a sale controlled the individual share.- An- possible example depreciable equipment other holder of such an its fair indirect sale, party involving in this by corporations market value case third followed two purchase by substantially individual, equivalent controlled equip- the same is where substantially the individual price by ment at shareholder makes same a contribu- consisting corporation depreciable party equipment controlled from a fourth not, capital may be, corporation which, by followed as the controlled case A passage capital planned after significant contribution of a controlled time, corporation proceeds depreciable equip- the amount sells the of sales corporation ment might received to controlled individual shareholder B for an possibly adjusted amount considered an excess of its indirect sale basis. Royce Till, Lake, R. T. Houston, Sim

Tex., curiae, amicus for Fulbright, Crooker & Jaworski.

James Clark, E. Birmingham, Ala., curiae, amicus for Alabama Defense Lawyers Assn. Royal Brin, Jr., H. Dallas, Tex., amicus Assn,

curiae, for Texas of Defense Coun- sel. Mandell,

Arthur Houston, J. Tex., Barish, I. Pa., Marvin Philadelphia, ami- Assoc, curiae, cus for of Trial Lawyers of America. George Frilot, III, A. New Orleans,

La., curiae, amicus for Survivors of U.S. Coast Guardmen who Lost Their Lives Aboard Buoy Tender White Alder. Thomas Lambert, Jr., F. Boston, Mass., Tully III, R. Florey, Pleasant, Mt. Tex., amicus curiae.

ON REHEARING EN BANC BROWN, Before Judge, Chief WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORN- Tex., Smith, War- Longview, M. John BERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, III, Faris, Gray, New M. ren M. Mat AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, Marshall, Hall, Jr., Orleans, La., B. Sam SIMPSON, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY Tex., Milner, La., Shreveport, Joseph W. GEE, Judges. Circuit defendant-appellant. for PER CURIAM: Marshall, Tex., Joseph Baldwin, Scott Kolius, Houston, Tex., Jamail, D. S. Gus I JURY TRIAL plaintiffs-appellees. for issue, On the jury trial en banc Houston, Tex., amicus Vickery, E. D. adopts original panel opinion curiae, Assn. for West Gulf Maritime by Judge case, Simpson in this reported Hare, Ala., Birmingham, H. Francis Cir., at 5 469 F.2d 897. curiae, for Alabama Trial Law- amicus yers Assn. II INFLATION Bag- Yancey, Edward S. Benjamin W. 21, opinion by an On November curiae, La., Orleans, amicus ley, New panel re- Judge Simpson for the Steamship Assn. New Orleans reprinted parties and was leased .Christi, Edwards, Corpus R. William the Federal Re- advance sheets of curiae, Trial for Texas Tex., amicus opinion porter, Second Series. Lawyers Assn. contained exten- on that date leased se, Kronzer, curi- pro amicus W. James issue. the inflation On sive discussion of ae. rehearing, March petition Orleans, initial the discussion of New Gainsburgh,, Samuel C. Kierr, and abbreviated to opinion was modified curiae, Gainsburgh La., amicus F.2d at 469 904—5. language out set Benjamin. & Second Circuit por- Sixth adopts now decisions The court en banc Judge cited in Simpson’s opinion, panel opinion initial tion of the full note that three other appear entitled circuits November released on agree procedure.1 with this Cunningham RE- FOLLOWING “PROCEEDINGS Bay Drilling thereto, Company, 421 F.2d reference facilitate MAND”. To (5th 1970) opinion overruled. To the portion of that ex unpublished tent that Canal Barge Company, Inc. v. appended here. is Griffith, (5th. 480 F.2d 1973) 11 Cir. an infla judicially notice We a view, nounced contrary that opinion econo in this nation’s tionary conditions cannot stand.2 be in the interim my have worsened opin 21, panel 1972 November tween the Ill INCOME TAX recognize that this today and and ion addition, In the court en banc has increases accelerating rate of inflation juries considered whether on remand the be inflation could the likelihood permitted causes be in these should condition for the fu predictable come a given consider evidence and be an in Nevertheless, with this added ture. impact on the struction income taxes surely cannot so discern we still light, proper calculations on their award coming inflation as a the shadow wages. of future Allowing for loss this inclu requiring its event as to warrant subject matter to be considered would calculating fu in a rule for sion require expert opinion admission of worsening of infla damages. The ture as evidence to what future income tax readily foretell a recession might as and expected rates deductions are as continuity. Strong depression as its or a opinion well evidence on what as current have governmental counter-measures applicable and deductions would be rates is still efficacy their proposed been and subject wage during earner vari too, inflation Then if future unknown. phases jury’s ous future loss cal wages, experience pre higher does cause necessity, this culations. Of evidence higher inter dictably demonstrates have to accompanied by would an in have al which est rates on investments struction from the court as to the appli will also oc ways accompanied inflation cation these rates such untaxable mitigate the fail this factor cur and (and, compensatory elements some inflationary surcharge ure to include cases, punitive damage taxable ele- In wage rate calculations. addition 1. 1st Cir. States, Williams v. question years United 435 F.2d is 34.6 . . . and this (1st 1970). 804 Cir. long ago court knows that less than that there period was a of severe Heym, 3rd Cir. deflation.” Frankel v. Id. at F.Supp. 971. 321 1331 per (E.D.Pa.1970), aff’d, Tucker, But see curiam in Mills v. (3rd 499 466 F.2d 1226 Cir. (9th 1972). 1974), p. F.2d 866 Cir. At states in 1346 dic the District Court stated: tum trial court inflationary have been in specu- The is trend failing fully error account lation. for inflation. Plaintiff has used the decade 1960’s, Koninklijke See also Yodice v. Nederlandsche one of the more times Maat., (2nd history 1971), Stoom. 443 F.2d 76 country, Cir. our as the basis denied, 933, 1902, projection cert. 411 U.S. 93 for a S.Ct. fifty years. 36 over It is (1973); L.Ed.2d 393 knowledge and common Petition of United that our Government Corp., (6th Steel States 436 F.2d and 1256 attempting has been Cir. to control infla- 1970), denied, 987, tion, cert. point 402 U.S. 91 even to the S.Ct. considering wage 1649, (1971), denied, 29 price L.Ed.2d 153 cert. and 402 controls. Economists differ on 987, 1660, predictions. (1971), U.S. 91 S.Ct. their 29 L.Ed.2d 153 Moreover, plaintiff will denied, 987, 1665, money cert. 402 U.S. 91 have S.Ct. 29 that can be invested and if (1971), denied, continues, 924, L.Ed.2d 153 reh. 403 U.S. the return mon- ey denied, 91 S.Ct. 29 greater, L.Ed.2d reh. will be 403 and this would have an (1971). U.S. 91 offsetting S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d 720 effect. 9th Cir. States, Furumizo v. United 245 rehearing, panel 2. On Barge in Canal F.Supp. (D.Hawaii, 1965), aff’d, 381 F.2d stayed its mandate and deferred consideration (9th 1967). In upholding the trial pending issue of this our en banc action. 480 court’s inflation, refusal to consider the circuit F.2d at “Moreover, period stated: here in ments) may be involved verdict. remaining “over the work- compound complexity To and the plaintiff”. life of the To attain the de- reducing proof jury’s difficulty in simplicity efficiency sired of trial award, monetary the tax effect of con- procedures, we portion recede from this tingent attorneys’ taxability fees and the of that decision. The gross calculated of the interest under the annui- must be reduced to ty principle used to calculate the reduced the use of an appropri- wages value of future would ate interest rate prevailing at the time analyzed. judgmental have to be As a place of trial. matter and consistent with our views on of the district court in

inflation, in a case such as those at bar both No. 71—2243 and No. 71—2245 are wage in which the annual rate involved reversed and the causes are remanded 8,646.40 (here 11,387.10 dollars) for further proceedings consistent with subject to an income tax rate which opinion. this projections would not distort or result in Reversed and remanded. recovery, a windfall we conclude that justice is better served if these contin- APPENDIX gencies, predictions variables and jury’s withheld from the consideration.3 PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING REMAND IV CONCLUSION Our conclusion that the district court remand thus becomes The rule on deprived in each case Penrod of its Sev- closely by to that announced similar right enth Amendment by jury to a trial Railway in Blue v. Western of Al panel requires reversal of en- abama, (5th 1972)4 469 F.2d 487 tered below with directions that new tri- to be adduced on the issue of Evidence als be juries held before unless Penrod earnings pre loss of should be the future 39(a) non-jury consents under Rule to earnings gross dicted lost due to defend proceedings. appropriate We think wrong neglect, adjust ant’s without gard husbanding judicial time re- taxes, calculated over the ment quires comment the manner injured party. work-life of the projected litigated which the issue of was gross earnings evidence of should The below, and decided and directions as to expressly proof that the indicate adduced procedure after remand. earnings rather than relates to total to Mayor, Dr. economist, Thomas an tes- pay. familiar “take-home” An the more tified for Starnes and Johnson in each by instruction the court also make trial purpose for the of projecting the if it is this condition clear deemed neces plaintiffs’ earnings future and prevailing possibility duplica sary to avoid the interest rates. that, He stated in his any tion of the tax element in award. opinion, the wages plaintiffs would probably increase at required Blue the use of an interest annual rate of 4.8% for the wages reduce remainder rate to future to current of their projected addition, projected appropriate value which was as work-lives. In he gross earnings history. judge example, The trial predicted 3. For had who could have instructed to present inflationary take into in the account times both the ex- determining probable earnings only lost legislative future ecutive and branches of our nation- wages evidence before it of government net advocating al earned. would be a tax re- appellant (with Blue did not seek from proportionately higher bate us a benefits ruling past that evidence as to his net taxpayers), earn- lower income aas means of coun- ings improper, sought but rather teracting contemporaneous es- business reces- only right tablish put his in addition to before sion. gross earnings evidence of his in the holding as in in Blue should be viewed 4. Our past. We ruled that he should be allowed to ap- by part of that the nature circumscribed presented do so. The issue appeal arising peal from it. There and the issues question did admissibility as such urged appellant the exclusion as error past earnings. evidence as to net judge as to his evidence of his tendered trial annuity, purchase single without recommended values of benefits, projected yield his earnings these death him aver- be com- puted through application age wage, commencing age annual of a 4% Mayor Dr. reduction factor. selected a for the duration of his life. company, 4% factor because an insurance plain- 34. The cash value of if asked plaintiffs single to sell $352,- earnings lost tiff’s payment annuity contracts written to re- 424.17.” average projected turn the In the Johnson findings case the were plaintiffs anticipated over their abbreviated, considerably more but obvi- work-lives, would assume a return 4% ously again adoption reflected an investment. expressed by Mayor: views Dr. Parsons, Dr. Burke A. also an econo- “21. The plain- mist, testified for Penrod in the Starnes tiff’s loss of from February purpose rebutting Dr. through year year Mayor’s testimony. Dr. Parsons ex- plaintiff at which the sixty- would be pressed the view impossible it was years $274,716.18. age, five project accuracy thirty-three Plaintiff was years economy trends in the petro- age on the date of the accident industry leum periods rep- over complained of and had a reasonable- resenting the remainders plain- expectancy life years of 36.69 from tiffs’ work-lives. He stated date, and a expectancy work life wage 4.8% increase figure age 65.” by Dr. Mayor high. was too regard With to an appropriate rate to be respect With to both Starnes employed for reducing the future earn- Johnson the district court found that ings present value, award to Dr. Parsons they had been permanently rendered testified that the then prevailing interest physically perform unfit their usual of rates between seven eight percent employment duties of or other forms of per year blue-chip corporate bonds regular manual labor on or continuous provide would an acceptable range of re- plaintiff basis and that neither was duction factors. equipped retraining for into work not entailing manual labor. The district following made the findings of fact as to the estimated fu- In 1939 the Restatement of Torts de- ture of Starnes: person clared that whose interests “[A] personality of have been tortiously in- “30. Plaintiff years age was 32 of vaded is entitled to recover day on the of the accident complained past prospective -(b) or . . loss of years of. He was 37 old at the time of earning capacity earnings”. Section the trial and had a life expectancy of 924, page 631. Comment d to that Sec- years. 34.4 In all probabili- reasonable tion, dealing with loss of future earn- ty, plaintiff would have continued ings, observed: age work until 65. 31. The wages of performing one “The extent of future harm to the type the of plaintiff work that earning capacity injured person of the performing at the time of the accident is measured the difference viewed in issue is likely to increase the as of the time of trial between annual per rate of 4.8% annum. This plaintiff’s value of the they services as percentage annual increases will be in view of the harm and as wages was the rate of increase of such they would have been had there been wages 1969; from 1946 to and was the no harm. This difference is the result- rate of annual increases which had reducing ant derived from present good held year from the value the anticipated losses of earn- ings during trial, prospec- 32. At time of it plaintiff tive life the plaintiff $418,671.00 would have would cost have had a con- betting on speculative course Accord- the defendant’s act. but for they quo; or of the status ascertain, tinuance facts must ingly, the trier of always and not advance, have made intuitive nearly be done in as can con- very wise yearly between the difference departure represent a from ditions plaintiff probably earnings which they to which imaginary norm some during or could have received would It is return. rapidly think we shall harm expectancy his life be courts would all not at clear proba- earnings which he will and the matter on the willing experts to hear during peri- to receive bly be able help get much real they or that would expectancy of his as now deter- od life part they For the most if did. type In this are considered mined. inevitably present done, problem plaintiff has work which the —which loss—is which, every of future case view of his type of work present value analyzed condition, education, experi- physical proper be money is assumed would have been do- age, ence and he basis. likely ing and will be to do working period of during problem necessarily insoluble life, mat- together with all other his principle single lump result is reasonably ters relevant. A recovery. approached It could sum erroneous, however, widely dif- flexibility sys- intelligent under a reasonably might fers from that which periodic payments continuing tem of upon the data. be reached admissible needs, the duration though system post other such a would worth ascertaining the In is, including greater adminis- problems earnings, future loss trative on courts and defend- fu- burden recovery because discounting the II, “The Law of advance, ants.” Volume for in paid are ture losses Torts”, 25.11, pages 1325-1326. cur- upon § is based rate of discount invest- long-term return rent Supreme The United Court ad- States losses prospective if the ments problem reducing itself to the dressed Pages 634—635. long continued.” earnings un- lost future Act, Employers Liability the Federal der in impact inflationary The of trends by into incorporated is reference which economy upon calcula- the the American Act, Chesapeake in & Ohio the Jones percep- of tion future lost Kelly, Railway U.S. Harper by Professors tively discussed 630, 60 1117. That case was L.Ed. S.Ct. “The Law of treatise and James in their Kentucky state brought action in the an Torts”: provisions FELA. courts under the of the pres- “Greater confusion surrounds judgment The trial court entered for the ent loss. Fu- jury future upon verdict and the plaintiff based money ture trends the value are in of Appeals Kentucky affirmed. Court necessarily always unknown and so appellate affirming ap- the In so damages speculative in a render such judge’s the to in- proved refusal way escape. we cannot If the esti- fu- jury the to discount the lost struct mates a represent (the being straight-line pro- earnings figure refusal ture jection present costs, living they upon theory that a com- the such based by will be frustrated fluctuations ei- jury). was too difficult for putation .the way. prophecy change is ther heeded, If Supreme Court re- The United States if no frustration follow versed, holding that the cash val- change, opposite change, or the occurs. the proper is meas- ue of consciously grappled When courts have brought in actions recovery ure of problem they with the have either regard to the selection of Act. With the speculative factor, found all too and prophecy Supreme the proper the reduction so, perforce, equally have taken the noted: Court are “Local conditions not to be disre- only plaintiff’s the net income after the besides, may there garded, and be deduction taxes. income The Court anticipated pecuniary cases where the upon impact commented the of inflation beneficiary which the advantage following manner: expectan- an deprived has been covers “Though some courts have sanc- aggregate in cy so short and is so permitting tioned instructions jury man small that a reasonable could not to take into account inflation between expected make an investment be injury trial, and the there is little annuity purchase proceeds authority or no charging favor of But, rule, judgment. as a and to take future inflation into it in all cases where is reasonable account, Harper James, see 2 may suppose safely that interest be Torts, (1956). Law of 25.11 Yet § upon amount that is earned regard there are few who do not some awarded, ascertained bene- degree of continuing inflation as here ought fits to be discounted in the mak- stay and willing would be to trans- ing up of the award. late their own earning power into a annuity, scarcely fixed and it is to be say that not mean “We do expected average personal that in- is common discount should be at what jury plaintiff will have the interest; acumen to ‘legal ly rate’ of called proof find investments that law, is, by beyond the rate limited against depres- both prohibited. interest It task sion —a formidable most rates are obtainable be expert investor. The effect of infla- securities, upon investments safe year tion of 1% a McWeeney’s over least, without the exercise of financial year expectancy go at trial would a experience and skill in the administra 29— way long fund; offsetting any toward excess it is evident verdict due to failure to deduct compensation should be awarded income tax.” 282 F.2d at 38. upon a basis that does not call skill, the beneficiaries to exercise such Circuit, The Sixth in Sleeman v. Ches- necessarily employed, for where this is apeake Railway Company, & Ohio 6 Cir. part the interest return is earned 414 F.2d encountered a situa- investor rather than the invest court, tion where the district sitting This, however, a matter ment. brought without in an action un- ordinarily may by scaling adjusted Act, Employers Liability der Federal adopted the rate interest to be computed plaintiff’s future lost earn- of the fu computing ings refused to reduce them to benefits; matter being ture it value because he believed that rule, that, knowledge as a common any trends would offset investments, those best and safest and Citing duction to net worth. care, yield only require the least which Supreme Kelly, supra, Court’s decision in at return.” 241 490— a moderate U.S. appeals the court of reversed the trial 632, 491, L.Ed. at 1122. 36 at 60 S.Ct. damages. appeals court’s award court observed: York, Haven, McWeeney v. New New “Nor do we encourage 2 Company, Cir. Railroad and Hartford explore courts of our circuit to 1960, 1960, 34, 364 282 F.2d cert. denied speculative influence future on dam- 93, 870, 115, 81 5 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. ages as and deflation. Employers under the Federal an action course, Seco.pd Circuit, Of the nation’s economic his- sit Liability Act. The tory since the appear 1930’s banc, would to that the district ting en held present wages make the use of as the refusing jury instruc not erred in had standard loss of future defendant railroad proffered tion plaintiffs. somewhat unfair calculating to But as jury, in the effect to future, the inflation versus de- consider earnings, loss of should future

241 inconclusively chasing power rages dollar or debate the con- flation govern price our sumer index. highest policy levels of campaigns, ment, in electoral national In the event of a retrial or retrials journals and is economic ex in learned juries, jury before instructions concern- gyrations of the daily emplified ing the discount rates to be applied The debate seems un markets. stock should conform with the Supreme satisfactorily in likely to be resolved Kelly, supra, Court’s comments in if testi injury trial. And personal one today’s decision us Blue v. Western of this factor bear monial resolution Alabama, Railway 1972, 5 Cir. 469 attempted, ing on the future F.2d 487. similarly speculative opened to door is tending BROWN, in other R. (dis- debatable offsets JOHN Judge Chief McWeeney senting): v. New See directions.

York, R.R., (2d H. H. 282 F.2d 34 N. & respectfully I dissent to the Court’s 1960).” 414 F.2d at 308. on I (jury trial),1 (infla- decision issues II tion),2 (income prophet tax)3 and III judicial notice of the We take reserve disap right dissenting opinion to file a quality of the Sixth Circuit’s ic inquiries judicial into one or more or all of those proval of issues. economy by inflationary trends our noting the President’s issuance of Execu GEE, Judge Circuit (dissenting): 17, 1971, August No.

tive Order respectfully I dissent from the ruling 15727, exercising powers his F.R. of the court en banc insofar only as it Act of Economic Stabilization (1) juries indicate which impose con Stat. P.L. 91 — try these cases on remand should rents, wages prices, and sala trols over not be advised that lump-sum ries. they which awards will be called on to replacements calculate as and compensa- Although today reverse for lost tion future will be ex- on the tri entered below empt (2) from income tax and they expressly supra, we question discussed al gross earnings are to use as their net attempt court’s district disapprove the earnings figures. because, I do so in my account, computing the into take view, holdings these mandate largesse earnings, inflation lost future plaintiffs’ justice. and not economy for this nation’s trends in ary As the That such decades. Sixth awards are not taxable is a next several decision, relatively piece in its Sleeman occult information concluded Circuit know, jurors unlikely influence on which we hold certainty inflation or defla possible whereas of death and taxes judi weighs upon a matter speculative is too the serious economic reflec (if others) either or every thinking determination. Should tions no citi cial jurors retried before a go of these cases be zen and will with the into the both triers of the facts should not be jury, they retire. Their as jury room when take into account future can sumption instructed in their deliberations deflationary upon trends only be that the amount therefore earnings, nor computing award, lost they whatever else item, be advised to consider a taxiable should might be substituted descriptions will fall. alternative of inflation Also of the collector the hand deflationary pur- trends as the I have misun ary unless under our decision, jurors’ Together knowledge, Thomberry, 1. withithe 1. With whom Gewin and com- Circuit they require Judges, join. to mankind and as to which mon instruction, special no that we are in a Godbold, Goldberg 2. With whom Circuit long-term lawyers inflation and that must Judges, join. paid. Gee, 3. With Ainsworth whom Circuit Judges, join. consider jurors are to it, the derstood to arrive at this earnings figures

pre-tax LAW, personal repre- Mrs. Joan Francis open Thus award. nontaxable Wesley sentative of the Estate of J. and direct fairyland gates of them the Law, Sr., etc., al., Plaintiffs-Appel- et earnings a take-home at to arrive them lees, replace it— lump sum to a figure 2—and v. have never would was and which never deference, is This, I submit been. SEA DRILLING CORPORATION and be law. not logic and should Corporation, Continental Oil Defendants-Appellants. matter, it is belaboring the Without earned income taxes on well known LeBEOUF, Thomas J. fifty percent ceil- may and do reach Plaintiff-Appellee, of, the case only instance ing. need One entertainer lawyer, an trial say, an able $250,000 per earning neurosurgeon or a CORPORATION, SEA DRILLING thirty-year twenty- or a having year, Defendant-Appellant. culpa- under killed expectancy, work-life No. 30657. immediately circumstances, grasp ble United blueprint Appeals, a States Court approve that we here Fifth Circuit. clearly unjust by may be awards which thousands, perhaps even hundreds millions, March 21, 1975. juries, retir- And so of dollars.3 sym- natural force of ing the full closing pleas to do counsel’s

pathy and of only their by the bereft on justice

full court, produce verdicts incor-

day in factors.4 It generous windfall porating these, countenancing of and not to the generous adequate

to an —com- —even losses, my that I voice real pensation for pointed lessons of One of the

dissent. supply that the times has been

recent just eggs is not unlimited: so

golden person that one

surely require as we just compensation— than

ceive more gotten but for the would have

what he another fault —somewhere

defendant’s

will receive less. gross largesse earnings. 2. Based on we extend our to one set of benefici- point aries and not to another? And at what majority opinion attempts 3. It is true the line? draw the are our courts to high-tax-rate problem avoid decedent il- by hinting lustrated might noted, different rules especially As this is so since the apply notion, however, to his case. This rais- is misled once, as to tax effects not but twice: problems dispels. es more sug- than it being gross first offered to use in gestion recognize seems to that what computing we do pay, take-home and second in re- necessarily produce here will ceiving awards in some no hint their award is nontaxa- unjust defendant, measure who is ble. Use of net would be the more pay made to decedent’s beneficiaries an incre- these, desirable reform since like other factors government mental amount which the projecting involved in —rather a work-life’s value into than he —would have future, received had he lived. past least accurate facts. injustice Doubtless small- or middle-sized But the nontaxable character of the award one, large more tolerable than a I am known, should also be made lest the feel deliberately require disturbed to see us tempted obliged superadd a factor production way, of either sort. Put another taxes which the survivors will never in fact suggestion since all but pay. admits that we have to gratuities, by here mandate what warrant do

Case Details

Case Name: Sam H. Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Company, James L. Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: May 1, 1975

Citation: 510 F.2d 234

Docket Number: 71-2243, 71-2245

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.