Johnson v. Morris
Minnesota Supreme Court
453 N.W.2d 31 (1990)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Jon Johnson (plaintiff) farmed late into the night and early into the next morning. When he finished, he drove his truck and trailer through a town past several police officers, who thought the timing indicated a theft could be in progress. The officers pulled over Johnson and asked for his driver’s license. Johnson said he did not carry one and drove away following a tense exchange. The officers pursued Johnson at low speeds, and Officer Steven Van Hal (defendant) joined the chase. Eventually, Johnson pulled over and got out of the truck. Van Hal then allegedly shot the tires of Johnson’s truck. Van Hal approached Johnson, aimed his gun at Johnson’s head, and told him to put his hands up or Van Hal would shoot him. Van Hal then handcuffed Johnson, which allegedly caused bruising and nerve damage. Johnson sued Van Hal and the other officers for various state and federal tort and civil-rights claims. The claims included two battery claims: one for shooting out the tires and one for the handcuffing. Johnson also brought an assault claim, alleging that Van Hal’s threat to shoot him constituted assault. The district court dismissed the claims at summary judgment, but the intermediate appellate court reversed as to Van Hal and reinstated the claims against him. Van Hal appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
