Court Opinion

ID: 9565734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:26:36.466875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.022869
License: Public Domain

NEELY, Justice,
dissenting in part:
I dissent only with regard to the imposition of a personal fine on the contemnor. This case concerns broad issues of social policy about which individuals of surpass-ingly good will passionately disagree. The Commissioner was executing the policy of the executive branch in attempting to avoid a potentially disasterous economic situation involving the loss of over 1000 jobs through every lawful means.
In the determination of issues of this sort there are accepted tolerances for inevitable friction among contending private factions and contending branches of government. Public officials are paid little enough without adding insult to injury by holding them personally liable for good faith exercises in judgment. The Commissioner pushed us and we resisted; further pushing would justify a personal fine. At this point, however, the Commissioner has not exceeded acceptable tolerances. Comity and civility among the branches of government therefore dictate to me that the fine is inappropriate.
Furthermore, although the majority opinion is unclear on this subject, it seems obvious to me that the imposition of attorneys’ fees against the Commissioner is in his official, and not his personal capacity. It is only with that understanding that I concur in the award of attorneys’ fees.