Wealot v. Brooks, No. 16-1192 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter her son was shot approximately 10 times and killed by the police, plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging excessive force and wrongful death under state law. The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the excessive force claims against the officers, holding that plaintiff demonstrated that there were at least two genuine disputes of material fact: (1) whether the officers saw plaintiff's son throw his gun and therefore knew he was unarmed, and (2) whether he was turning around to the officers with his hands raised to surrender. The court held, however, that there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude the officers acted with malice or in bad faith. Therefore, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal as to the wrongful death claims. The court reversed in all other respects and remanded.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendant police officers used excessive force when they shot and killed Waylon Wealot, the district court erred in determining no rational jury could find the police officers' actions unreasonable based on the "rapidly-evolving circumstances" with which they were presented; there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the officers could have seen Waylon discard his weapon as they pursued him and whether his hands were in the air when he turned to face the officers; as a result, the district court erred in granting the officers summary judgment on the excessive force claim; in light of this decision, the court restores for the district court's further consideration the claims against the Chief of Police and the board of police commissioners; there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude the officers acted with malice or bad faith, and the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's state law wrongful death claim. Judge Wollman, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.