Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 889 F.2d 906 - Harding v. Galceran

Harding v. Galceran’s Empirical Analysis

889 F.2d 906 · 1989

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
3
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa (1995), Cervantes v. City of San Diego (1993)

34 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

45019891990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Felder v. Casey

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although, under the Supremacy Clause, these policies cannot be served by prohibiting a party from bringing a section 1983 claim, they can be served by tolling the statute of limitations in section 1983 claims when there are criminal charges pending against the potential plaintiff. On the other hand, a refusal to toll the period would ignore the state's policies and the interrelationship between the state’s policies and the tolling provision.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No person charged by indictment, information, complaint, or other accusatory pleading charging a criminal offense may bring a civil action for money or damages against a peace officer or the public entity employing a peace officer based upon conduct of the peace officer relating to the offense for which the accused is charged, including an act or omission in investigating or reporting the offense or arresting or detaining the accused, while the charges against the accused are pending before a justice, municipal, or superior court. Any applicable statute of limitations for filing and prosecuting these actions shall be tolled during the period that the charges are pending before a justice, municipal, or superior court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although any statute of limitations is necessarily arbitrary, the length of the period allowed for instituting suit inevitably reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones. In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length of the limitation period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling, revival and questions of application.”
    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.