Case Name: David L. MASINTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARLIN DRILLING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1991-07-02
Citations: 938 F.2d 536
Docket Number: No. 90-3265
Parties: David L. MASINTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARLIN DRILLING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RONEY , and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 938
Pages: 536–536

Head Matter:
David L. MASINTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARLIN DRILLING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 90-3265.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 2, 1991.
. Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RONEY , and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Masinter has filed a petition for rehearing in Masinter v. Tenneco Oil Company, 929 F.2d 191 (5th Cir.1991) (Masinter II) and a motion to recall and reform the mandate entered in Masinter v. Tenneco Oil Company, 867 F.2d 892 (5th Cir.1989) (Masinter I). The panel in Ma-sinter I recalled and reformed its mandate and instructed the district court to award Masinter interest on his award of future lost wages from the date of the first judgment.
In Masinter II this Court ruled that Ma-sinter could only recover interest on his award of future lost wages from the date of a second, modified judgment pursuant to the original mandate in Masinter I. Because of the reformation of that mandate we now grant Masinter's petition for rehearing in Masinter II. We remand to the district court the issue relating to Masinter's interest award on future lost wages for further proceedings consistent with the reformed mandate in Masinter I.
We confirm and reinstate our prior opinion, 929 F.2d 191, in all respects not inconsistent herewith.