Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Day/Dissent Stewart

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Black
Dissenting Opinions
Black
Brennan
Stewart

United States Supreme Court

360 U.S. 548

Pennsylvania Railroad Company  v.  Day

 Argued: March 26, 1959. --- Decided: June 29, 1959


Mr. Justice STEWART, dissenting.

My brother HARLAN'S opinion contains, it seems to me, a lucid and persuasive analysis of the principles that should guide decision in this troublesome area of law. Where I part company is in the application of these principles to the facts of the present case.

I cannot agree that the issuance by the petitioner of this press release was 'action in the line of duty.' The statement to the press (set out in note 5 of Mr. Justice HARLAN'S opinion) did not serve to further any agency function. Instead, it represented a personally motivated effort on the petitioner's part to disassociate himself from the alleged chicanery with which the agency had been charged.

By publicizing the action which he intended to take when he became permanent Acting Director, and his past attitude as a lesser functionary, the petitioner was seeking only to defend his own individual reputation. This was not within, but beyond 'the outer perimeter of petitioner's line of duty.'

For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice BRENNAN, see 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1347.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse