Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.2d 234 · 1975
Citation profile
100 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2004 · most notably Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. (1975), Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation (1981)
100 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. District Court · Braunfeld v. Gibbons · Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. Addie Kelly · Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club · McWeeney v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should not be instructed to take into account future inflationary or deflationary trends in computing future lost earnings, nor should the jury be advised to consider such alternative descriptions of inflationary and deflationary trends as the purchasing power of the dollar or the consumer price index.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the influence on future damages of possible inflation or deflation is too speculative a matter for judicial determination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Penrod this court stated: “We judicially notice that inflationary conditions in this nation’s economy have worsened in the interim between the November 21, 1972 panel opinion and today and we recognize that this accelerating rate of inflation increases the likelihood that inflation could become a predictable condition for the future. Nevertheless, with this added light, we still cannot so surely discern the shadow of inflation as a coming event as to warrant requiring its inclusion in a present rule for calculating future damages. The worsening of inflation might as readily foretell a recession or a depression as its continuity. Strong governmental countermeasures have been proposed and their efficacy is still unknown. Then too, if future inflation does cause higher wages, experience predictably demonstrates that higher interest rates on investments which have always accompanied inflation will also occur and this factor will mitigate the failure to include an inflationary surcharge in wage rate calculations.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.