Court Opinion

ID: 9553479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:30:13.33353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:13.050934
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I am in total accord with the opinion of the court in this case, and I concur in it. While one of my reactions to the case may border upon the whimsical, I cannot avoid noting an irony I perceive in the contentions of the Union Pacific Resources Company. An earnest argument is made addressing the unseemliness or probable impropriety of expending public funds for reimbursement of the “bounty hunters” on a contingent fee basis. The irony I perceive is that this argument is made on behalf of those who have it within their control to prevent any such payments. All that is required to avoid any contingent fee payments is correct and consistent reporting of oil and gas production by those in the industry. If that goal is achieved, there will be no recoveries out of which to pay such contingent fees.