Graham v. Connor
United States Supreme Court
490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)
- Written by Shelby Crawford, JD
Facts
Graham (plaintiff) is diabetic. He had an insulin reaction on the day in question, and his friend Berry drove him to a store to buy juice. There was a long line at the store so Graham rushed out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend’s house. Officer Connor (defendant) became suspicious after seeing Graham rush in and out of the store and pulled Berry’s car over to make an investigative stop. Berry explained that Graham was having an insulin reaction, but Connor told them to wait there until he found out if something happened at the store. When backup arrived, Graham was handcuffed and shoved against the hood of Berry’s car face down. The officers refused to give Graham sugar and ignored his request that they check his wallet for his diabetic decal. During the incident, Graham sustained several injuries, including a broken foot and shoulder injury. He was finally released when Connor learned that nothing happened at the store. Graham sued Connor and the other officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983, charging them with using excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Connor moved for a directed verdict. The district court applied a four-factor test and granted Connor’s motion for directed verdict, finding that the force used was appropriate under the circumstances and applied in a good faith effort to restore order. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
