268 F.2d 844 (2nd Cir. 1959), 25715, Appalachian Power Company v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Docket Nº25715.
Citation268 F.2d 844
Party NameAPPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, Ohio Power Company and Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, L. H. Penney, William W. Werntz and Carman G. Blough, Defendants-Appellees.
Case DateJune 17, 1959
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 844

268 F.2d 844 (2nd Cir. 1959)

APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, Ohio Power Company and Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, L. H. Penney, William W. Werntz and Carman G. Blough, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 25715.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 17, 1959

Argued June 4, 1959.

Whitney North Seymour, of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City (Richard M. Dicke and William J. Manning, of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Howard C. Westwood, of Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. (Fontaine C. Bradley, Stanley L. Temko, George C. Christie, and Phil R. Stansbury, of Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Page 845

PER CURIAM.

On a theory of prima facie tort, plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants, a professional association of accountants and several of its officers, from distributing to its members and others a letter to the effect that the Institute considers certain accounting procedures improper. Plaintiffs allege that in the preparation of this letter the Institute disregarded its usual practice of circulating proposed opinions for comment prior to their issuance and that the promulgation of the views contained in the letter, because of the Institute's authority in the accounting profession and in the business community, will impair plaintiffs' credit and limit their growth.

The court below properly considered this action as on a motion for summary judgment once both parties had filed supporting affidavits to their motions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) specifically authorizes this procedure, and we do not see that plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to present materials pertinent to summary judgment which the rule provides.

On the merits we agree with Judge Levet's reasoned opinion below, D.C.S.D.N.Y., May 20, 1959. We think the courts may not dictate or control the procedures by which a private organization expresses its honestly held views. Defendants' action involves no breach of duty owed by them to the plaintiffs. On the contrary every professional body accepts a public obligation for unfettered expression of views and loses all rights to professional consideration, as well as all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • 472 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), 77 C 2552, Catterson v. Caso
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit
    • June 29, 1979
    ...be specially pleaded. See Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 177 F.Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y.), Aff'd, 268 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1959); Brandt v. Winchell, supra. Plaintiff has failed to allege the essential elements for a cause of action under the prima facie......
  • 291 A.2d 37 (Md. 1972), 323, Beane v. McMullen
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • May 18, 1972
    ...v. United States, [265 Md. 607] 333 F.2d 702 (3rd Cir. 1964); Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 268 F.2d 844 (2nd Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 887, 80 S.Ct. 158, 4 L.Ed.2d 121 (1959). 3. Slander of title. The first and apparently only case in......
  • 300 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1962), 16394, Gager v. Bob Seidel
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 20, 1962
    ...motions. [14] Allison v. Mackey, supra note 12; Appalachian Power Company v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 268 F.2d 844, 845 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 887, 80 S.Ct. 158, 4 L.Ed.2d 121 (1959); 2 Moore, Federal Practice P12.09(3) at 2256 (2d. ed. [15] See e.g., O'......
  • 27 F.R.D. 14 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), Murchison v. Kirby
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 30, 1961
    ...10 F.R.D. 443. [15] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Cf. Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 844 (per curiam), certiorari denied, 1959, 361 U.S. 887, 80 S.Ct. 158, 4 L.Ed.2d 121; Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 2 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • 472 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), 77 C 2552, Catterson v. Caso
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit
    • June 29, 1979
    ...be specially pleaded. See Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 177 F.Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y.), Aff'd, 268 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1959); Brandt v. Winchell, supra. Plaintiff has failed to allege the essential elements for a cause of action under the prima facie......
  • 291 A.2d 37 (Md. 1972), 323, Beane v. McMullen
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • May 18, 1972
    ...v. United States, [265 Md. 607] 333 F.2d 702 (3rd Cir. 1964); Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 268 F.2d 844 (2nd Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 887, 80 S.Ct. 158, 4 L.Ed.2d 121 (1959). 3. Slander of title. The first and apparently only case in......
  • 300 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1962), 16394, Gager v. Bob Seidel
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 20, 1962
    ...motions. [14] Allison v. Mackey, supra note 12; Appalachian Power Company v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 268 F.2d 844, 845 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 887, 80 S.Ct. 158, 4 L.Ed.2d 121 (1959); 2 Moore, Federal Practice P12.09(3) at 2256 (2d. ed. [15] See e.g., O'......
  • 27 F.R.D. 14 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), Murchison v. Kirby
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 30, 1961
    ...10 F.R.D. 443. [15] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Cf. Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 844 (per curiam), certiorari denied, 1959, 361 U.S. 887, 80 S.Ct. 158, 4 L.Ed.2d 121; Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 2 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Gap in the Perception of GAAP
    • United States
    • American Business Law Journal Nbr. 54-3, September 2017
    • September 1, 2017
    ...in Opposition to Appellants’ Motion for Injunc-tion Pending Appeal, Appalachian Power Co. v. Am. Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants,268 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1959), http://www.sechistorical.org/collection/papers/1950/1959_0501_AppalachianAICPAAppeals.pdf.2017 / The Gap in the GAAP firm’s capital......