already become necessary for the resolution of disputed factual issues. See Fisher v. City of Memphis, 234 F.3d 312, 317 (6th Cir.2000) (finding no error in instructions charging the jury to consider, in a qualified immunity case, whether the defendant's use of deadly force had been objectively reasonable); McCoy v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2000) (stating that, if the qualified immunity issue is not decided until trial, it "goes to the jury which must then determine the objective reasonableness of the officers’ conduct”); Ortega v. O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.1998) (finding that a district court’s submission of the objective reasonableness question to the jury “constituted an appropriate and proper instruction”); Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 650 (2d Cir.1994)
holding that antitrust lawsuit in which a jury after a monthlong trial found for the defendants should never have reached the jury and affirming the district court on the alternative ground that it should have granted defendants pretrial motion for summary judgment holding that jury should decide whether plaintiffs testimony proved reasonable and necessary medical expenses holding that under the substantial evidence standard the reviewing court must decide whether on this record it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the agencys conclusion holding that a district court should have let the jury  decide whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that they were acting within the bounds of the law holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide