Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Keiser v. Hartman

Keiser v. Hartman, 339 F.2d 597 (3d Cir. 1964)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1964-12-21
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. 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 tor-tious 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Keiser v. Hartman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
10 opinions
KEISER v. HARTMAN,339 F.2d 597(3rd Cir. 1964)
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.
No. 14841.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued November 16, 1964.
Decided December 21, 1964.
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.
PER CURIAM.
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.Page 598