Case Name: Clarence E. OKESON, Appellant/Appellee, v. TOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, County of Renville, State of North Dakota, a public corporation; and Terry Spear, Ernest Mau, Wayne Hellebust, Carol Resch, and Gerald Egeberg, individually and as members of the School Board of Tolley Public School District No. 25, Appellees/Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1985-07-01
Citations: 766 F.2d 378
Docket Number: Nos. 84-1254, 82-1255
Parties: Clarence E. OKESON, Appellant/Appellee, v. TOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, County of Renville, State of North Dakota, a public corporation; and Terry Spear, Ernest Mau, Wayne Hellebust, Carol Resch, and Gerald Egeberg, individually and as members of the School Board of Tolley Public School District No. 25, Appellees/Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 766
Pages: 378–380

Head Matter:
Clarence E. OKESON, Appellant/Appellee, v. TOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, County of Renville, State of North Dakota, a public corporation; and Terry Spear, Ernest Mau, Wayne Hellebust, Carol Resch, and Gerald Egeberg, individually and as members of the School Board of Tolley Public School District No. 25, Appellees/Appellants.
Nos. 84-1254, 82-1255.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
July 1, 1985.
McMillian, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
On petition for rehearing Chief Judge Lay and Judge Ross find that there was sufficient evidence in the record to allow the jury to pass upon the issue of good faith and the defense of qualified immunity of the individual school board members. The jury was properly instructed on these issues. Under the circumstances of the return of the favorable jury verdict, we find the judgment in favor of the individual school board members should be affirmed. The qualified immunity defense was, in the instant case, a question of fact. Individual members sought and were given advice by the school board attorney that grounds for discharge existed and that no further hearing was required. This was a reasonable assumption since there was no question that Okeson had appeared before the board and that an open discussion of the board's concerns had occurred. After this confrontation, the board members could in good faith assume that the attorney's advice was correct and that no. further hearing was necessary.
Judgment in favor of the individual members of the school board is affirmed. We agree that the panel opinion, 760 F.2d 864, reversing the judgment in favor of the board should be reversed.
. The school board did not move for rehearing.