Estate of Snyder v. Julian, No. 13-3012 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSnyder was on parole after serving sentences for possession of a controlled substance and automobile theft. The Missouri Board of Probation and Parole determined that Snyder had absconded and issued a warrant for his arrest. Julian, an employee of the Board’s Fugitive Apprehension Unit, received a telephone call informing him that Snyder was at an apartment in Cape Girardeau. Julian drove to the address and positioned his car in a well-lighted parking lot in front of the apartment. Julian saw Snyder, got out of his car, and informed Snyder that he was a parole officer with a warrant for Snyder’s arrest. Snyder placed his hands on the back of Julian’s car. Julian approached, stood to Snyder’s left, and placed his left hand on Snyder’s left shoulder. Snyder then turned to his right and began to run. After Snyder took two steps, Julian fired one shot, killing him. In a suit by Snyder’s estate, the jury rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but awarded $1 million for wrongful death. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that there was sufficient evidence to defeat Julian’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and that the damages award did not require a new trial.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding for plaintiffs on their claim for wrongful death, as a reasonable juror could have found that defendant, a parole officer seeking to arrest the plaintiffs' decedent for a parole violation, shot the plaintiffs' decedent as he was running away from defendant and not after he turned toward defendant in a threatening manner; the evidence thus supported a reasonable inference that defendant intentionally fired his gun at the deceased "needlessly," while "manifesting a reckless indifference to the rights of others;" as a result, defendant was not entitled to official immunity because the evidence supported a finding of malice; for the same reasons, defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the public duty doctrine;$1 million damages award affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.