Silva v. Crain’s Empirical Analysis
169 F.3d 608 · 1999
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Owens v. Okure · Felder v. Casey · Michael Arthur Donovan v. Earl Reinbold and Harley Askew, Michael Arthur Donovan v. Earl Reinbold and Harley Askew
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have previously declared that in California the general, residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions is the one year period set forth in California Civil Procedure Code section 340(3). . . . “But, argues [plaintiff], when a person presents a damage claim to a public agency pursuant to the California [Government] Claims Act, a different special statute of limitations comes into play as to actions against that agency and its employees. The Act requires that notice of a claim be given to a public entity before an action can be brought against it. . . . It also provides for a special six-month, or sometimes two-year, statute of limitations. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a). [Plaintiff’s] attempt to use these provisions to carve out an exception to the one-year statute and thereby resuscitate his fading claim is futile. “In general, state notice of claim statutes have no applicability to § 1983 actions. . . . That, as we have said, includes their special statutes of limitations. . . . “. . . The [statutory] section[, 945.6, which requires suit within six months,] ... is simply a separate freestanding special statute of limitations which applies when claims are presented to public agencies. Once a claim is presented, the section is the only statute of limitations which applies to that claim. It no more tolls the general residual tort statute of limitations than do other wholly separate statutes of limitations. It, like other statutes of limitations, applies and co”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.