1. Does Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995)
foreclose 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 do
such disputes concern evaluation of the materiality of a particular fact, which, under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242
(1986) is a legal issue, and therefore subject to
interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)?

2. Did the Eighth Circuit improperly depart
from this Court's decision in Kisela v. Hughes,
__ US. __, 188 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (per curiam)
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?

3. Did the Eighth Circuit improperly depart
from this Court's decisions in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. _, 1384 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) 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?

Whether qualified immunity should be denied where the underlying evidentiary fact is undisputed but different inferences may be drawn from it