(DOWNLOAD) "Central Airlines Inc. v. United States" by Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Central Airlines Inc. v. United States
- Author : Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 04, 1998
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
Dewey E. Towner owns Central Air Southwest, Inc., a commercial air freight carrier that leases its aircraft from Central Airlines, Inc. In 1993, the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), through its employees William D. Stewart, Walter J. Hutchings, Thomas E. Stuckey, John C. Curry, Mark G. Camacho, and Timothy C. Titus (the employees), brought civil penalty actions against Towner, Central Air Southwest, and Central Airlines (collectively the carriers). Based on the employees' interpretation of FAA regulations, the FAA told the carriers their planes needed additional equipment to fly in known or forecasted icing conditions, and the FAA threatened to fine the carriers and ground their planes if operations continued. To avoid the fines, the carriers broke their air freight contracts and installed the specified equipment. According to the carriers, the FAA later admitted the employees' ""previous interpretation [of the regulations] was incorrect."" (Pls.' Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) Claiming a loss of nearly eight million dollars, the carriers sued the United States, the FAA, and the employees. Aside from other claims not involved in this appeal, the carriers allege the employees violated the carriers' Fifth Amendment equal protection and substantive due process rights when the employees initiated the civil penalty actions ""based upon incorrect versions of applicable law."" (Pls.' Am. Compl. ¶ 65.) Asserting qualified immunity, the employees filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the constitutional claims. The district court denied the employees' motion, but granted Stewart's and Stuckey's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The four remaining employees appeal. See Hafley v. Lohman, 90 F.3d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding denial of motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is an appealable final order), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1081 (1997). We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity, and like the district court we view as true the asserted and incorporated allegations in the equal protection and substantive due process counts of the carriers' complaint. See id. at 266-67. We also construe all reasonable inferences from the allegations favorably to the carriers. See id. Dismissal is inappropriate ""unless it appears beyond doubt [the carriers] can prove no set of facts in support of [their constitutional] claim which would entitle to relief."" Id. at 266. The employees contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because the allegations in the challenged counts are insufficient to state a violation of the carriers' constitutional rights. See Merritt v. Reed, 120 F.3d 124, 126-27 (8th Cir. 1997).
 "Central Airlines Inc. v. United States" by Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}