Circuit split · civil rights law
Whether a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 false-arrest claim accrues (starting the statute of limitations) at the time of the arrest or only when the related criminal proceedings terminate
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Wallace v. City of Chicago440 F3D 421
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · March 8, 2006
“If there is a compelling practical reason for flouting conventional statute of limitations principles, forging a lonely path, and creating more work for the Supreme Court, which now faces an intercircuit conflict on a recurrent issue, the panel has not explained what it might be.” — Split of authority
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Civil action for deprivation of rights
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- DiscussedBeck195 F.3d 559
“And note that Beck, one of the cases the panel cites for its rule, expressly declined to reject Covington.” — Wallace v. City of Chicago, acknowledging the split
- DiscussedCovington
“And note that Beck, one of the cases the panel cites for its rule, expressly declined to reject Covington.” — Wallace v. City of Chicago, acknowledging the split
- On the other sideHarvey v. Waldron210 F.3d 1015
“Waldron, supra, 210 F.3d at 1015 , to “a split in the circuits.” The court in Harvey miseharacter-izes the approach of courts (including itself!) that reject the approach taken by the *434 panel today.” — Wallace v. City of Chicago, acknowledging the split
- DiscussedMontgomery
“I count 12 cases to 0 against the panel’s approach, with the other three cases CMontgomery, Simmons, and Datz) noncommittal but consistent with the 12.” — Wallace v. City of Chicago, acknowledging the split
- DiscussedSimmons
“I count 12 cases to 0 against the panel’s approach, with the other three cases CMontgomery, Simmons, and Datz) noncommittal but consistent with the 12.” — Wallace v. City of Chicago, acknowledging the split
- DiscussedDatz
“I count 12 cases to 0 against the panel’s approach, with the other three cases CMontgomery, Simmons, and Datz) noncommittal but consistent with the 12.” — Wallace v. City of Chicago, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Statutes:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.