Keiser v. Hartman
| Decision Date | 21 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 14841.,14841. |
| Citation | 339 F.2d 597 |
| Parties | Ronald W. KEISER, Appellant, v. Richard P. HARTMAN, Rocco F. Denice, Stephen J. Wurn, Jr., F. Rene Gossiaux, Chester J. Tyson, Jr., Agnes C. Sullivan and Joseph D. Loughrin. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Herman A. Adler, Ewart, Lomell, Muccifori & Adler, Toms River, N. J., for appellant.
Edward Berlin, Dept. of Justice, Appellate Sec't., Civil Division, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Morton Hollander, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARIS, STALEY and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, a former employee of the Department of Agriculture, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint against seven fellow employees of the Department seeking damages for alleged libel and other tortious conduct. The plaintiff conceded that the defendants' acts were within the outer perimeter of their line of duty as Federal employees. The action of the district court was based upon its conclusion that the acts were accordingly absolutely privileged under the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Barr v. Matteo, 1959, 360 U.S. 564, 575, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434. The district court rightly held that Barr v. Matteo rules this case and its action in dismissing the complaint must be affirmed. Indeed counsel for the plaintiff frankly conceded as much at bar, his expressed hope being to persuade the Supreme Court on certiorari to overrule that decision. This the Supreme Court may do if so advised, but we may not.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Cauthen
...19 L.Ed.2d 666; Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 149; Keiser v. Hartman, 339 F.2d 597 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 934, 85 S.Ct. 1764, 14 L.Ed.2d 699; Denman v. White, 316 F. 2d 524 (1st Cir. 1963); Bershad v. Wood,......
-
Martinez v. Schrock
...case of Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959) and later applied in this circuit in Keiser v. Hartman, 339 F.2d 597 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 934, 85 S.Ct. 1764, 14 L.Ed.2d 699 (1965). Plaintiff appealed the order of Our starting point is the Bailey ......
-
Burton v. Peartree
...within the outer perimeters of their official duties. Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959); Keiser v. Hartman, 339 F. 2d 597 (3 Cir. 1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 934, 85 S.Ct. 1764, 14 L.Ed.2d 699. This immunity also applies when jurisdiction is claimed under the......
-
Ruderer v. Meyer
...(reports by fellow government employees and notices to plaintiff culminating in her voluntary retirement for disability); Keiser v. Hartman, 339 F.2d 597 (3 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 934, 85 S.Ct. 1764, 14 L.Ed.2d 699 (alleged libel by fellow employees to secure Agriculture Departm......