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

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

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
510 F.2d 234
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1979–1986
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co. was overruled in part: the Fifth Circuit abandoned its bar on considering inflation when awarding future lost earnings. Other courts declined to follow its damages or jury trial rules, and a later Fifth Circuit opinion confined its jury trial ruling to cases with an independent right to a jury.
More on how this was screened

All 33 flagged citations have been read. The five confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Sam H. Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Company, James L. Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Company; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

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

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Fifth Circuit sitting en banc overruled Johnson's rule barring evidence and argument about future inflation in lost earnings awards.

    Culver v. Slater Boat Co. · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    This case comes before us on rehearing en banc to consider whether the holding of this Court in Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc), that neither proof, nor argument, nor jury instructions concerning inflationary factors may be considered or used in maritime, Jones Act, and FELA personal injury and wrongful death actions, should be overruled.1 After careful consideration of this singular issue, we overrule Penrod and remand this case to the District Court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed the overruling of Johnson's inflation rule while replacing other parts of its earlier Culver opinion.

    Culver v. Slater Boat Co. · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    For these reasons, Parts I through VI of our prior en banc decision, 688 F.2d 280, 283-95, are reaffirmed. The rule announced in Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 839, 96 S.Ct. 68-69, 46 L.Ed.2d 58 (1975), is overruled. We withdraw, however, Parts VII through XII of our decision in Culver I.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Eighth Circuit declined to follow Johnson's burden for proving future earnings increases in a railroad injury case.

    Taenzler v. Burlington Northern, Inc. · Eighth Circuit · filed

    But see, e. g., Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 839, 96 S.Ct. 68, 46 L.Ed.2d 58 (1975) (setting forth Fifth Circuit rule that anticipated future inflationary trends are too speculative to be considered in awarding damages for future lost earnings). ... We decline to follow this approach.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit followed its own contrary rule and allowed an admiralty claim to proceed without the other party's consent to withdraw a jury demand.

    Emerson G.M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enterprise · Ninth Circuit · filed

    In Johnson, the Fifth Circuit held that injured seamen who asserted both diversity jurisdiction and Jones Act jurisdiction could not, through the device of amending their complaint to state admiralty and maritime claims, effectively withdraw their demand for a jury trial without obtaining the defendant's consent. We considered this same issue in McCrary v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 469 F.2d 666 (9th Cir.1972) and came to the opposite conclusion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Fifth Circuit confined Johnson's jury trial ruling to cases where diversity jurisdiction supplied the defendant an independent jury trial right.

    Rachal v. Ingram Corp. · Fifth Circuit · filed

    There is an important distinction between Johnson and the case before us today, however: the Johnson plaintiffs alleged diversity jurisdiction as well as Jones Act jurisdiction, while here Rachal has asserted only admiralty and Jones Act jurisdiction. ... We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case when it granted leave to amend and when it struck the jury demand.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Sam H. Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Company, James L. Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Company and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace