# Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson v. Thomas J. Dodd

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · June 9, 1969 · 410 F.2d 701

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454543

## Case

- **Full name:** Drew PEARSON and Jack Anderson, Appellants, v. Thomas J. DODD, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** June 9, 1969
- **Citations:** 410 F.2d 701
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tamm
- **Judges:** Robinson, Tamm, Wright
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454543

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing tort of intrusion in general
- describing trover as the ancient common law form of action that led to the modern substantive tort theory of conversion

## Opinion text

TAMM, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
Some legal scholars will see in the majority opinion — as distinguished from its actual holding — an ironic aspect. Conduct for which a law enforcement officer would be soundly castigated is, by the phraseology of the majority opinion, found tolerable; conduct which, if engaged in by government agents would lead to the suppression of evidence obtained by these means, is approved when used for the profit of the press. There is an anomaly lurking in this situation: the news media regard themselves as quasi-public institutions yet they demand immunity from the restraints which they vigorously demand be placed on government. That which is regarded as a mortal taint on information secured by any illegal conduct of government would appear from the majority opinion to be permissible as a technique or modus oper-andi for the journalist. Some will find this confusing, but I am not free to act on my own views under the doctrine of *709 stare decisis which I consider binding upon me.
I concur, therefore, in Judge Wright’s disposition of this case albeit I have some difficulty in concluding that the appellee would be without legal remedy if the entire factual situation herein were before us on pleadings encompassing all possible legal aspects suggested by the facts. Our review is, however, confined to a limited area, compressed by the amended complaint, restricted by certain stipulations, and curbed by our consideration only of the propriety of the trial court’s action upon a motion for summary judgment. We must predicate our judgment upon the record as it comes to us, not upon some theoretical or philosophical idea of what the record might have been had the pleadings and the record in the trial court presented us with a wide latitude for study and a multiple selection of possible dispositions. Upon the present record we have more voice than power.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454543. Public record. Not legal advice.