Court Opinion

ID: 9643314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:25:20.597302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:59.233182
License: Public Domain

FRANK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I incline to think that this would be a good case in which to use Occam’s razor,1 and thus avoid squandering our energies by contriving a rule about the res judicata consequences of our decision, since that is a question not now before us. However, parsimony in contriving concepts may sometimes mean excessive intellectual stinginess 2 • or lazy unwillingness to think a subject through; and my colleagues apparently regard this as such an occasion.
I suppose, therefore, I ought to say something on the res judicata issue. Of the two views, although I am not wholly in accord with either, I come somewhat closer to Judge Hand’s than to Judge Clark’s. In particular, however I am unwilling to go along with Judge Hand’s intimations about unconstitutionality. I think it always unwise for a court to cross hypothetical constitutional bridges; crossing actual ones is dangerous enough.
At any rate, I want to bring out the fact that Judge Hand seems to me to leave open one question which I think ought surely to be left open for answering until a case arises where it specifically presents itself and is fully argued by counsel: If the. Administrator, on behalf of certain employees, asks for and obtains a judgment for wages, but does not ask for liquidated damages, will that be res judicata in a later suit, for such damages, brought by any of those employees ?

 Usually Occam's razor-like maxim is said to be: “Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.” Bertrand Russell reports, however, that Occam actually said: “It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer.” William James describes this “law of parsimony” as at best a labor-saving device.

 Kenneth Burke remarks that, correlative with Occam’s precept, we need another: “Entities should not be reduced beyond necessity.”