Graham v. Connor
- Decided
- May 15, 1989
- Docket
- 87-6571
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 16,485 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Lott 871773 v. Corizion
What later courts said
- holding that excessive force claims should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, rather than under substantive Due Process — Hu v. City of New York (2019)
- holding that the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test is the appropriate standard for evaluating excessive force claims — (untitled) (2000)
- holding that Fourth Amendment excessive force claims are properly analyzed under an objective reasonableness standard — Ramirez v. Knoulton (2008)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.
In this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, petitioner Dethorne Graham seeks to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when law enforcement officers used physical force-against him during the course of an investigatory stop. Because the case comes to us from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the entry of a directed verdict for respondents, we take the evidence hereafter noted in the light most favorable to petitioner. On November 12, 1984, Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction. He asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a nearby convenience store so he could purchase some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Berry agreed, but when Graham entered the store, he saw a number of people ahead of him in the check [*389] out line. Concerned about the delay, he hurried out of the store and asked Berry to drive him to a friend’s house instead.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.