Carlyle Johnson, Appellee-Appellant v. Doyle Busby Donald Miller & Myron Gauger, Appellants-Appellees, 704 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Carlyle Johnson, Appellee-Appellant v. Doyle Busby Donald Miller & Myron Gauger, Appellants-Appellees, 704 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Henry H. Hagemeier, and Mary L. Hagemeier, His Wife v. John Block, Individually and in His Capacity as Secretary of the United States Dept. Of Agriculture Allen Brock, Individually and in His Capacity as Acting Assistant Administrator for Farmer Programs and Former Acting Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration, Charles Shuman, Individually and in His Capacity as Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration John O. Foster, Individually and in His Capacity as State Director of Missouri Rande S. Bryan, Individually and in His Capacity as District Director Terry A. Luetkemeyer, Individually and in His Capacity as County Supervisor, United States Department of Agriculture, Charles Rule, Jr. And Wanda F. Rule, His Wife v. John Block, Individually and in His Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture Allen Brock, Individually and in His Capacity as Acting Asst. Adm. For Farmer Programs and Former Acting Adm. Of the Farmers Home Adm. Charles Shuman, Individually and in His Capacity as Adm. Of the Farmers Home Adm John O. Foster, Individually and in His Capacity as State Director for Mo William T. Shay, Individually and in His Capacity as District Director and Ronald Moody, Individually and in His Capacity as County Supervisor, U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture Robert Noellsch, Individually and in His Capacity as County Supervisor U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture (ca8, 1986-12-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henry H. Hagemeier, and Mary L. Hagemeier, His Wife v. John Block, Individually and in His Capacity as Secretary of the United States Dept. Of Agriculture Allen Brock, Individually and in His Capacity as Acting Assistant Administrator for Farmer Programs and Former Acting Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration, Charles Shuman, Individually and in His Capacity as Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration John O. Foster, Individually and in His Capacity as State Director of Missouri Rande S. Bryan, Individually and in His Capacity as District Director Terry A. Luetkemeyer, Individually and in His Capacity as County Supervisor, United States Department of Agriculture, Charles Rule, Jr. And Wanda F. Rule, His Wife v. John Block, Individually and in His Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture Allen Brock, Individually and in His Capacity as Acting Asst. Adm. For Farmer Programs and Former Acting Adm. Of the Farmers Home Adm. Charles Shuman, Individually and in His Capacity as Adm. Of the Farmers Home Adm John O. Foster, Individually and in His Capacity as State Director for Mo William T. Shay, Individually and in His Capacity as District Director and Ronald Moody, Individually and in His Capacity as County Supervisor, U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture Robert Noellsch, Individually and in His Capacity as County Supervisor U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Although we have held that FmHA officials enjoy absolute immunity from liability for common law torts in certain instances, see Poolman v. Nelson, 802 F.2d 304, 307-08 (8th Cir.1986); Johnson v. Busby, 704 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1983), we decline to decide the question with regard to the claims in this case as this issue was not argued in the district court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hagemeier v. Block
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Although we have held that FmHA officials enjoy absolute immunity from liability for common law torts in certain instances, see Poolman v. Nelson, 802 F.2d 304, 307-08 (8th Cir.1986); Johnson v. Busby, 704 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1983), we decline to decide the question with regard to the claims in this case as this issue was not argued in the district court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Poolman and Jeffrey Poolman v. Gerald Nelson (2×)
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bushman v. Seiler, 755 F.2d 653, 655-56 (8th Cir.1985); Johnson v. Busby, 704 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carlyle JOHNSON, Appellee-Appellant,
v.
Doyle BUSBY; Donald Miller and Myron Gauger, Appellants-Appellees
82-1432, 82-1548.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 13, 1983.
704 F.2d 419
Steven C. Beardsley, Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, P.C., Rapid City, S.D., for appellants-appellees., J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Terry L. Pechota, U.S. Atty., Boulder, Colo., Philip N. Hogen, U.S. Atty., Anthony J. Steinmeyer, John C. Hoyle, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee-appellant.
Lay, Bright, Ross.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Carlyle Johnson brought suit against Doyle Busby, Donald Miller, and Myron Gauger, employees of the Farmers Home Administration (FHA), alleging that these FHA officials willfully and maliciously denied him an FHA loan. A jury awarded Johnson the sum of one dollar in damages. The FHA officials appeal the award on grounds of immunity to liability for the common law tort claims against them. Johnson cross-appeals in denying Johnson’s motion for a new trial on damages.

The record in this case establishes without question that the defendants acted within the outer perimeter of their duties. As such, these officials possess an absolute immunity from damages based on common law torts. Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959). This present case is controlled by this court’s decision in Gross v. Sederstrom, 429 F.2d 96 (8th Cir.1970), which presented a factual situation not legally distinguishable from the facts here. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in denying defendants’ several motions for dismissal before, during, and after trial, and in failing to grant defendants’ motion for judgment n.o.v.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment of dismissal of Johnson’s actions against the defendants.

We reject the cross-appeal and affirm the trial court’s order denying Johnson a new trial on damages.