# Jefferson v. Lewis

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 4, 2010 · 594 F.3d 454

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9610082

## Case

- **Full name:** Tracy JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 4, 2010
- **Citations:** 594 F.3d 454; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2348; 2010 WL 374741
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Guy
- **Judges:** Martin, Guy, McKeague
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9610082

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that qualified immunity was a question of fact for the jury in light of competing inferences that could be drawn from the facts at issue and their effect on the question of whether an officer’s actions were objectively unreasonable
- noting that courts determining whether an officer’s use of force was reasonable should consider “the ‘information possessed’ by the officer, without regard to the officer's subjective beliefs and without regard to facts not known by the officer at the time of the incident”
- affirming denial of summary judgment when the plaintiff lived to contradict the police officer’s version of the events before the shooting
- declining to credit “what may be a self-serving account by the police officer” (quoting Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994))

## Opinion text

GUY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the affirmance of the district judge’s decision to deny defendant’s motion based upon a claim of qualified immunity. It cannot be said at this stage that defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law.
I would leave it at that, however, and not parse the parties various contentions as to what actually occurred. We have only the record that was before the court at the summary judgment stage, which might differ from what the parties present at a trial. I do not join in those parts of Judge Martin’s opinion that might be read to suggest what the outcome would be if one party or the other prevailed on their pre-trial contentions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9610082. Public record. Not legal advice.