Court Opinion

ID: 9676644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:29:22.608566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:50.056722
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 Per Curiam.  In their petition for rehearing, appellants contend that they requested this court to set Staha’s and Hatfield’s salaries for the years 1987-1991, but the court failed to determine these men’s compensation for 1991. Having used testimony and evidence of the appellees’ expert witness to set such salaries, we point out that the year 1991 was not mentioned. As a consequence, any setting of Staha’s and Hatfield’s salaries would have to be addressed by the parties and the trial court on remand. Appellants’ and appellees’ petitions for rehearing are otherwise denied. Corbin and Brown, JJ., not participating.