Barr v. Matteo, 13217
Citation | 256 F.2d 890 |
Decision Date | 12 June 1958 |
Docket Number | 13218.,No. 13217,13217 |
Parties | William G. BARR, Appellant, v. Linda A. MATTEO, Appellee. William G. BARR, Appellant, v. John J. MADIGAN, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Paul A. Sweeney, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen., George C. Doub, Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Joseph Langbart, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Byron N. Scott, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Richard A. Mehler, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
The case is before us a second time. In our earlier decision, Barr v. Matteo, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 244 F.2d 767, where the facts are set forth more fully, we held that appellant, defendant in the District Court, could not successfully defend the libel suit of appellees, plaintiffs, on the basis of an absolute privilege. For reasons stated by the majority we did not pass upon the District Court's rejection of appellant's claim of a qualified privilege. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case to us "with directions to pass upon petitioner's claim of a qualified privilege." Barr v. Matteo, 355 U.S. 171, 173, 78 S.Ct. 204, 2 L.Ed.2d 179. On this remand the case has been briefed and argued again.
A qualified privilege exists "when a communication relates to a matter of interest to one or both of the parties to the communication and when the means of publication adopted are reasonably adapted to the protection of that interest." Blake v. Trainer, 79 U.S. App.D.C. 360, 362, 148 F.2d 10, 12. We now hold that appellant had a qualified privilege as Acting Director of the Office of Rent Stabilization to publish a defense of his conduct and that of his organization.
Several questions remain. One is whether appellant stayed within his qualified privilege or lost it by excessiveness of publication of the press release in suit. As to this we think that in view of the widespread public nature of the criticism of the Agency the scope of dissemination of the press release was not excessive. Another question is whether the qualified privilege which otherwise existed did not apply because the press release was aimed at appellees rather than at the source of the criticism of the Agency, which was in the Congress of the United States. We think that appellees were so connected with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butler v. United States
...473 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1973). 24 See also Barr v. Matteo, 100 U.S.App.D. C. 319, 244 F.2d 767 (1957), and, after remand, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 176, 256 F.2d 890 (1958). 25 Compare Boyd v. Huffman, 342 F.Supp. 787 (N.D.Ohio 1972) with Hughes v. Johnson, 305 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 26 Judge Medina point......
-
Butz v. Economou
...179 (1957), directing the Court of Appeals to consider the qualified-privilege question. This the Court of Appeals did, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 176, 256 F.2d 890 (1958), holding as this Court described it, that "the press release was protected by a qualified privilege, but that there was evidence ......
-
Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Day
...... Madigan, then Deputy Director in charge of personnel and fiscal matters, and respondent Matteo, chief of the personnel branch, suggested to the Housing Expediter a plan designed to utilize some ...Justice HARLAN. . The petitioner Barr, while acting as Director of the Office of Rent Stabilization, a United States Government Agency, ......
-
Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
...it went. Do what you will, the stern chase after a lie that has got the start is apt to be a long one.")).38 See Barr v. Matteo, 256 F.2d 890, 891 (D.C.Cir.1958) (per curiam), rev'd on other grounds, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959); Mencher v. Chesley, 193 Misc. at 831, 8......
-
THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
...the court of appeals found that the applicability of qualified privilege turned on questions of fact requiring trial. Barr v. Matteo, 256 F.2d 890, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1958), rev'd 360 U.S. 564 (1959). The Supreme Court reversed and held that the official was entitled to absolute immunity as a m......