Case Citation
Legal Case Name

GRAHAM v. CONNOR Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1989
490 U.S. 386 109 S.Ct. 1865 104 L.Ed.2d 443 Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Federal Courts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A diabetic man was injured by police during an investigatory stop. The Supreme Court held that claims of excessive force by police during an arrest or stop must be judged under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, not a subjective “malicious and sadistic” standard.

Legal Significance: Established the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard as the exclusive framework for analyzing excessive force claims during arrests, investigatory stops, or other seizures. It rejected the subjective substantive due process test, focusing instead on the officer’s actions, not their intent.

GRAHAM v. CONNOR Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Petitioner Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, experienced the onset of an insulin reaction and asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store for orange juice. Due to a long checkout line, Graham hastily exited the store. Respondent Officer Connor observed Graham’s hurried actions, became suspicious, and conducted an investigatory stop of the vehicle. Although the friend informed Connor that Graham was suffering a “sugar reaction,” Connor detained them and called for backup. While waiting, Graham exited the car, ran around it, and briefly passed out. When other officers arrived, they forcefully handcuffed Graham, ignoring pleas to provide him with sugar. An officer dismissed his condition, stating, “Ain’t nothing wrong with the M. F. but drunk.” The officers shoved Graham’s face onto a car hood and threw him headfirst into a police vehicle, refusing to let him consume orange juice brought by a friend. Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts, bruises, and a lasting ear injury. After a report confirmed Graham had done nothing wrong, the officers released him. Graham filed a § 1983 suit alleging excessive force.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: What constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure?

The Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard is the exclusive standard for analyzing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

What constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure?

Conclusion

Graham is a landmark decision that provides the definitive analytical framework for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla paria

Legal Rule

All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that a single, generic "excessive force" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea c

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • All claims of excessive force during an arrest, stop, or other
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Law school: Where you spend three years learning to think like a lawyer, then a lifetime trying to think like a human again.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+