In the letter, Kessler stated that, if Sweno wanted a liquor license, he would have to complete a new application. Sweno has not applied for a license. Arbuckle's claims it was damaged when a potential investor withdrew from investing in the bar because he thought its liquor license was revoked. Appellants moved for summary judgment, claiming they are entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied both the mandamus petition and the summary judgment motion.
Appellants challenge the district court's denial of summary judgment on their immunity claim.
Arbuckle's appealed the denial of the mandamus petition, but this court found that the order denying the petition was not appealable and dismissed the appeal. N A denial of a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. On appeal from summary judgment, this court must determine if any genuine issues of material fact exist and if the district court erred in its application of the law. The existence of qualified immunity from suit brought pursuant to section 1983 is purely a question of law, which this court reviews de novo . An individual has a cause of action against persons who, acting under color of state law, violate the individual's constitutional or statutory rights.