Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Graham Vs. Connor

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 15, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

67 entries 6 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Whitley Vs. Albers US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1986
  2. Bell Vs. Wolfish US Supreme Court · May 14, 1979
  3. ingraham Vs. Wright US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1977
  4. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
    Relied / Followed
  5. United States Vs. Place US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1983
  6. Estelle Vs. Gamble US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1976
  7. U.S. 386 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor
    Search
  8. U.S. 386 (1989) Graham v. Connor
    Search
  9. to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  10. force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  11. about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396 -397. (d) The Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  12. Id. at 949-950. The dissenting judge argued that this Court's decisions in Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  13. U. S. 1 (1968), and Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  14. F.2d at 950-952. We granted certiorari, 488 U.S. 816 (1988), and now reverse. Fifteen years ago, in Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  15. F.2d at 1032. As support for this proposition, he relied upon our decision in Rochin v. California
    Search
  16. same four factors relied upon by the courts below in this case. Id. at 1033. In the years following Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  17. Baker v. McCollan
    Search
  18. standard. See Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  19. of the person. This much is clear from our decision in Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  20. against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id. at 471 U. S. 8 , quoting United States v. Place
    Search
  21. carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  22. officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  23. vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  24. Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, Hill v. California
    Search
  25. U. S. 797 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison
    Search
  26. Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  27. of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United
    Search
  28. Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  29. nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United
    Search
  30. States, supra, at 436 U. S. 138 , citing United States v. Robinson
    Search
  31. is one arising under the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  32. importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, see Whitley v. Albers
    Search
  33. Petitioner's argument was based primarily on Kidd v. O'Neil
    Search
  34. F.2d 1252 (CA4 1985), which read this Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  35. F.2d at 1254-1257. The reasoning of Kidd was subsequently rejected by the en banc Fourth Circuit in Justice v. Dennis
    Search
  36. The majority noted that, in Whitley v. Albers
    Search
  37. F.2d at 948, n. 3, quoting Whitley v. Albers
    Search
  38. protections did not attach until after conviction and sentence. 481 F.2d at 1032. This view was confirmed by Ingraham v. Wright
    Search
  39. See Justice v. Dennis
    Search
  40. applies to excessive force claims brought against federal law enforcement and correctional officials under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  41. see Brower v. County
    Search
  42. Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. See Bell v. Woefish
    Search
  43. U.S. at 475 U. S. 319 , quoting Ingraham v. Wright
    Search
  44. U.S. at 430 U. S. 670 , in turn quoting Estelle v. Gamble
    Search
  45. U.S. at 475 U. S. 320 -321 (emphasis added), quoting Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  46. F.2d at 1033. We also suggested that the other prongs of the Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  47. See id. at 475 U. S. 320 -321. Our endorsement of the Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  48. consider, along with other factors, evidence that the officer may have harbored ill-will toward the citizen. See Scott v. United
    Search
  49. See Anderson v. Creighton
    Search
  50. I also see no basis for the Court's suggestion, ante at 490 U. S. 395 , that our decision in Tennessee v. Garner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial