Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

George C. Hibma v. Richard T. Odegaard, James Nikodem, and Michael Paul Szula, and Sawyer County, Wisconsin, Intervening

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided July 30, 1985No. 84-1137, 84-1445Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCudahy, Circuit Judge

I agree with the cogent analysis of the majority in holding that the actions of the deputy sheriffs were within the scope of their employment and concur in Section I of the panel opinion. I see no way to distinguish the acts of the deputy sheriffs here from those of the police officers involved in Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 536 F.Supp. 462 (E.D.Wis.1982), affd in part, rev’d in part, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir.1984), and Cameron v. City of Milwaukee, 102 Wis.2d 448, 307 N.W.2d 164 (1981). In those cases, as here, the officers were acting for their own purposes but were doing, albeit very…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. United States v. BaileySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Bell v. City of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  4. William Whirl v. C. v. (Buster) Kern and Fidelity and Deposit Company of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  5. Wade v. HaynesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API