J.R. Youngdale Construction Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that while qualified immunity should normally be decided by the court, where facts concerning the availability of the defense are disputed \jury consideration is normally required\
• holding that the seizure of suspected thieves constituted an arrest due to “(1) the numerous oppressive elements of the encounter between the police and the plaintiffs, (2) the limited evidence that there was a crime, and (3
• distinguishing between the reasonableness of actions for constitutional liability purposes and the reasonableness of belief in the actions’ lawfulness for qualified immunity purposes
• noting this but finding no probable cause because information was not provided by a victim or eyewitness and was not corroborated by on-scene observations
• finding error where district court did not submit to the jury the question of whether the defendant’s actions were objectively reasonable, for qualified immunity purposes
• remanding for trial on the issue of qualified immunity where “[factual] disputes bear directly upon whether it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that they were acting lawfully”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).