# Henry Lee Bryan v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Henry Wade, District Attorney, Fidelity & Deposit Co.& Lena Giddens

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 30, 1976 · 530 F.2d 1210

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462505

## Case

- **Full name:** Henry Lee BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence JONES, Sheriff, Henry Wade, District Attorney, Fidelity & Deposit Co. & Lena Giddens, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 30, 1976
- **Citations:** 530 F.2d 1210; 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11537
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gee
- **Judges:** Gewin, Thornber-Ry, Gee, Wisdom, Clark, Goldberg, God-Bold, Brown, Bell, Thornberry, Coleman, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Morgan, Roney, Tjoflat
- **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462505

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that subsequent decisions “cast considerable doubt on the wisdom or continued vitality of [Whirl].”

## Opinion text

GEE, Circuit Judge
specially concurring:
We here hold that good faith is a defense to § 1983/false imprisonment actions. Whirl v. Kern 1 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462505. Public record. Not legal advice.