Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

457 F.2d 793

Docket No. 71-1555.

Harrison v. Wright

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-04-03

2 counsel of record

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mulligan v. Schlachter · Crawford v. Zeitler · Jones v. Bombeck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1972-04-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 1995 · most notably Jones v. Bales (1972), Wright v. State of Tennessee (1980)

17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

160197219801990decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gore, Barrett, Mitchell, & Barrett, Lionel R. Barrett, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.

Paul F. Bumpus, Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for defendant-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge and CELEBREZZE and KENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Harrison appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for damages against a Nashville policeman.

¶2

The complaint charged that the officer committed an assault and battery against Harrison while he was in police custody on January 21, 1967, in violation of his civil rights, secured to him by 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1985(3). Harrison's action was commenced February 24, 1971, but dismissed without prejudice for failure to cite a named defendant. The suit was refiled April 6, 1971, more than four years after the alleged assault and battery.

¶3

The District Court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground that Harrison's action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided by T.C.A. Sec. 28-304. We affirm.

¶4

In Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir. 1968) this court said: "Since the Civil Rights Act itself contains no limitation period, the courts will look to the most analogous statute of limitations of the state where the cause of action arose." It has long been Tennessee law that the disability of imprisonment does not save the statutory bar. Bledsoe v. Stokes, 60 Tenn. 312 (1872). Harrison urges this court to adopt a rule of law for Tennessee which would toll the running of the statute of limitations while he was imprisoned. This request goes against the established law of Tennessee, which this court is bound to follow. Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1964). To like effect see Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3rd Cir. 1967).

¶5

Affirmed.

/457/f2d/793 · .json · Public domain