Court Opinion

ID: 9462505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:42:41.260174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:37.404534
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge
specially concurring:
We here hold that good faith is a defense to § 1983/false imprisonment actions. Whirl v. Kern1 holds that it is not.2
I concur generally in the majority opinion, as far as it goes.3 With deference, I suggest that it should go on and overrule Whirl v. Kern rather than leave it, like Marley’s Ghost, to materialize from time to time on awkward occasions — present in form but eviscerated.

. 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1968).

. As the panel opinion herein recognizes when it refers, for example, to “the Whirl v. Kern decision that good faith is not a defense to a § 1983 action for false imprisonment,” and again,, to “Whirl’s refusal to recognize the good faith defense to a charge of false imprisonment.” 519 F.2d at 45.

. Though I would prefer to await the case of imprisonment caused by the error of a negligently-established record keeping system before deciding it, as the opinion’s penultimate paragraph seems to do.