◆ SpookStack

exceptional importance. In requiring the submission of the federal appellees’ claim of qualifiea official immunity to the jury, the panel's decision conflicts with both the spirit and letter of well-established ned of authority typified by Butz v. Economou, U.S. _, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (1978) ; and Maiorana v. MacDonald, 1/ F.2G° * (C.A.. I, Nos. 78-1424 and 78-1425, April 18, 1979), which direct the "firm application" of the Ferien, ales of cali Procedure to. avoid aT trials in immunity cases. Moreover, _ in allowing attorneys' fees ata purely interlocutory posture in this case, the panel's decision is: in direct conflict with Grubbs v- Butz, 548 F.2d 973 (C.A. D.c., 1976). INTRODUCTION ‘This is. an action brought, inter alia, against FBI agents and an FBI informant who,- pursuant. to FBI directives, supplied information to State law enforcement officers. The State law enforcement officers subsequently, pursuant.to a search warrant, conducted a search upon the plaintiffs' apartment. That search allegedly was conducted in an unlawful or unconstitutional manner, and resulted in the injuries for which appellants seek relief. After an eighteen-month trial, the district court granted a directed verdict for the federal datendants upon the ground that each had testified extensively, and denied any participation — plan, agreement, or conspiracy to violate plaintiffs' constitutional or ~