context: We believe that the circumstances here are analogous to those in Wright. In essence, Hay's appeal, although largely fact-based, presents the legal question of whether Hay's conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable official would have known. We therefore believe it appropriate to decide this appeal.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 854 F.2d 138, 141
citation_a.parenthetical: whether defendants' actions violated plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights is "essentially a legal question"
citation_a.sentence: See also Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1047 (8th Cir.1989) (appellate review includes prima facie legal and factual issues); Walker v. Schaeffer, 854 F.2d 138, 141 (6th Cir.1988) (whether defendants’ actions violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights is “essentially a legal question”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 105 S.Ct. 2816, 2816
citation_b.parenthetical: "To be sure, the resolution of these legal issues will entail consideration of the factual allegations that make up the plaintiff's claim for relief"
citation_b.sentence: Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (“To be sure, the resolution of these legal issues will entail consideration of the factual allegations that make up the plaintiff’s claim for relief”).