Newbury v. Love
| Decision Date | 28 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 13245.,13245. |
| Citation | 242 F.2d 372 |
| Parties | Arthur W. NEWBURY, Appellant, v. Harold Robert LOVE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Joseph Langbart, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub and Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Paul A. Sweeney, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER and BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
Appellee, discharged from Government employment, consulted an attorney in an effort to obtain reinstatement. The attorney telephoned the appellant, the Government personnel officer involved, and discussed the case with him while appellee listened on an extension. In the course of the conversation, appellant said that appellee Based on this matter appellee was awarded a verdict of $100 in his defamation suit.1 This appeal resulted from the judgment entered on that verdict.
Appellant contended below that the statements complained of were not actionable, even if defamatory, because (1) he made them in connection with his official duties; and (2) he made them in reply to an inquiry from appellee's attorney and his reply was not malicious and did not go beyond the inquiry. National Disabled Soldiers' League v. Haan, 1925, 55 App.D.C. 243, 4 F.2d 436. The District Court overruled these contentions.
We think it clear that, in the circumstances of this case, appellant's statements were made in the proper performance of his official duties and are, therefore, absolutely privileged. Cf. Colpoys v. Gates, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 193, 118 F.2d 16. Since a judgment of dismissal should have been entered on this ground,2 we need not decide any other questions presented.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
1 The suit had been based upon other allegedly defamatory material as well, but those matters were dismissed out of the case and are not here involved.
2 This defense was adequately, if inartistically, asserted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Storch v. Board of Directors of Eastern Montana Region Five Mental Health Center
...as a public officer was acting within the scope of his authority his communication was absolutely privileged. See also: Newbury v. Love, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 242 F.2d 372; Morgan v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 424 F.2d 200; Preble v. Johnson, 10 Cir., 275 F.2d The Court went on to say why an absol......
-
Barr v. Matteo, 13217
...Farr v. Valentine, 38 App.D.C. 413. So would an explanation addressed to the plaintiffs or to their representative. Newbury v. Love, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 242 F.2d 372. But in explaining his decision to the general public, the defendant went entirely outside his line of duty. If such ......
-
Gaines v. Wren
...are considered to be made in the performance of the official duties of such officer, and are absolutely privileged. Newbury v. Love, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 242 F.2d 372. See also, Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.E......
- Frank v. WILSON SUPPLY COMPANY, 13462