Court Opinion

ID: 9462920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:53:22.628297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:50.835924
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
The opinion of the court implicitly and, I think, correctly decides that permitting this jury to consider future inflation as a factor in calculating damages was not plain error, necessitating a reversal despite the absence of an objection. That it would have been reversible error had an objection been made is settled in this circuit by Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc). But none was, the opinion is correct both here and otherwise, and I concur in it.