141747P.pdf   12/07/2015  James Dean  v.  County of Gage
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1747
                          and No:  14-1773
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In this civil rights action plaintiffs, who 
   were cleared of rape and murder charges following DNA testing, sued the 
   County and the officers involved in their convictions For the court's 
   prior opinions in the case, see Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 
   2012) and White v. Smith, 696 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2012). The district court 
   properly denied the officers' renewed Rule 50 motion for qualified 
   immunity; district court did not err in certifying its dismissal of 
   conspiracy claims against Gage County for an interlocutory appeal under 
   Rule 54(b); the district court erred in dismissing the conspiracy claim as 
   there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find for plaintiffs 
   on the claim; the evidence produced at trial showed the County Sheriff 
   made final policy and represented the county in the area of law 
   enforcement investigations and arrests; as a result, it was for the jury 
   to decide if his decisions in the case constituted county policy that 
   caused the deprivation of plaintiffs' rights, and the district court erred 
   in dismissing the official-capacity claims against the county; the orders 
   dismissing the conspiracy claim and all claims against the county are 
   reversed; the order denying the officers qualified immunity is affirmed. 
  
141747P.pdf   08/31/2015  James Dean, et al.  v.  County of Gage, et al.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1747
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln.   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiffs were exonerated by DNA evidence and 
   brought this action against the County and the officers involved in their 
   cases. For the court's prior opinion in the matter see Winslow v. Smith, 
   696 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2012). Since this court's prior opinion denied 
   qualified immunity for the officers as a matter of law, the district court 
   should not consider a Rule 50 motion on qualified immunity unless 
   substantially different evidence was adduced at trial; here the trial 
   evidence did not support the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity, 
   and the district court properly denied the renewed Rule 50 motion for 
   qualified immunity; the mistrial in this case created the need for an 
   immediate appeal and Rule 54(b) certification was appropriate as the 
   certified issues are self-contained and an appellate ruling will finally 
   resolve the sufficiency of plaintiffs' conspiracy claims against the 
   defendants; the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' conspiracy 
   claims on the ground the claim was waived on remand; viewed in the light 
   most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence was sufficient to give rise to 
   the reasonable inference that defendants acted in concert with the goal of 
   securing plaintiffs' convictions, and the district court erred in 
   dismissing the conspiracy claim; the district court erred in dismissing 
   all claims against the County as plaintiffs produced evidence that 
   defendant sheriff DeWitt was the final policy maker for the county; 
   whether the policy decisions violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights is 
   a question for the jury in the second trial.