Taylor v. Glotfelty

201 F.2d 51
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedDecember 23, 1952
Docket11542
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 201 F.2d 51 (Taylor v. Glotfelty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taylor v. Glotfelty, 201 F.2d 51 (6th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been heard and considered on the record and on the briefs and arguments of the attorney appointed to represent the appellant and of the United States Attorney, and also on the brief of appellant in propria persona: from all of which it appears that appellant, when an inmate of the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, brought an action for damages against the appellee who, when the alleged tortious acts were committed, was psychiatrist on official duty at the Medical Center.

The appellant avers that he was libelled by the appellee, who pronounced him to be suffering from' paresis, and that the physician in so stigmatizing him was acting maliciously and without even having given him a personal examination and thus caused him to be confined in a ward for the insane at the Medical Center.

As was found by the District Judge, the acts of which appellant complains were done by the appellee physician in the discharge of his official duties and in relation to matters committed to him for official determination.

It should be borne in mind that this is not a petition for habeas corpus, but is a civil action for damages. An officer acting within the scope of his duties as defined in law is not liable for damages in a civil action because of a mistake of fact made by him in the exercise of his judgment or discretion. Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 108, 99 F.2d 135, 138, and cases there cited. This rule of immunity has been extended even to situations where the officers acted from ulterior motives. Laughlin v. Rosenman, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 164, 163 F.2d 838, 841.

We think the District Judge properly sustained the motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in his opinion; and, accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hoesl v. United States
451 F. Supp. 1170 (N.D. California, 1978)
Martinez v. Cardwell
542 P.2d 1133 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1975)
Green v. Cauthen
379 F. Supp. 361 (D. South Carolina, 1974)
Estate of Burks v. Ross
438 F.2d 230 (Sixth Circuit, 1971)
Estate v. Ross
438 F.2d 230 (Sixth Circuit, 1971)
Roberts v. Williams
302 F. Supp. 972 (N.D. Mississippi, 1969)
Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America
47 F.R.D. 263 (District of Columbia, 1969)
Delatte v. Genovese
273 F. Supp. 654 (E.D. Louisiana, 1967)
Myers v. Cromwell
267 F. Supp. 12 (D. Kansas, 1967)
Vendetti v. Shuster
36 Pa. D. & C.2d 230 (Erie County Court Common Pleas, 1964)
Gamage v. Peal
217 F. Supp. 384 (N.D. California, 1962)
Jacob M. Poss v. Jerome Lieberman
299 F.2d 358 (Second Circuit, 1962)
Bedrock Foundations, Inc. v. Geo. H. Brewster & Son, Inc.
155 A.2d 536 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1959)
Barr v. Matteo
360 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Fortier v. Hobby
262 F.2d 924 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
Montgomery v. Philadelphia
140 A.2d 100 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Kenneth T. Lyons v. W. E. Howard, Jr.
250 F.2d 912 (First Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 F.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-glotfelty-ca6-1952.