This area of the law is, indeed, confusing. 2727, 2734-35, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), 3 and his disposition of the case solely on the issue of judicial immunity, we perceive that he confused those cases where a government official is accused of committing a common law tort with those cases involving charges of violating the federal constitution or a federal statute.
#CARL PANZARELLA TRIAL#
8, 11 (S.D.N.Y.1982).įrom the trial judge's citation to Harlow v. The effective functioning of government requires that officials in defendants' position be free to offer comments and criticisms regarding internal administrative matters without fear of potentially chilling damage suits. In this case, Strothman's interest in compensation clearly is outweighed by the substantial public benefit that derives from the uninhibited internal scrutiny of government agencies. See also Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc. Although it would be regrettable to deny recovery to a plaintiff who had in fact been damaged by a government official's tortious conduct, it is better "to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation." Barr, 360 U.S.
Finally, in view of the circumstances of this case, we are convinced that a grant of absolute immunity to defendants would further the policies underlying the Barr doctrine.
0 kommentar(er)
