good faith standard “contains both a subjective element of good faith and an objective element of reasonableness”
How later courts described this case
- good faith standard “contains both a subjective element of good faith and an objective element of reasonableness”
- noting that subsequent decisions “cast considerable doubt on the wisdom or continued vitality of [Whirl].”
- “[W]e surveyed the law of false imprisonment and concluded that intent to imprison without legal authority need not be proved as an element of the prima facie case. . . . [A] prima facie case [for false imprisonment] is made out against a jailer even when he believes he has legal authority to detain a prisoner. Accordingly, whatever impact his good faith has, it must be as an element of a defense.”
- “Thus, a prima facie case is made out against a jailer even when he believes he has legal authority to detain a prisoner. Accordingly, whatever impact his good faith has, it must be as an element of a defense”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEWIN, Circuit Judge, with whom THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge,
joins, specially concurring:
I concur in the reasoning and the result of the majority en banc opinion with one exception. I do not approve the criticism of our opinion in Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 901 , 90 S.Ct. 210 , 24 L.Ed.2d 177 (1969). In my judgment that case is distinguishable, factually, procedurally and substantively from the case sub judice.