Burningham v. Raines

Issues: (1) Whether Johnson v. Jones forecloses interlocutory appeal of an order denying summary judgment on qualified immunity, where the underlying evidentiary fact is undisputed, but where different inferences may be drawn from the particular fact, or whether such disputes concern evaluation of the materiality of a particular fact, which, under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc. is a legal issue, and therefore subject to interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v. Forsyth; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit improperly departed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes and numerous other cases by denying qualified immunity notwithstanding the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting the officers; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit improperly departed from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard in denying qualified immunity based upon the absence of a constitutional violation given that the undisputed facts established that petitioners acted reasonably in responding to the threat of an armed suspect moving towards another officer less than 12 feet away while wildly waving a knife.