concluding that principles of federalism, as well as the Supremacy Clause, dictate that a state law that conditions the right of recovery under section 1983 on compliance with a state rule designed to minimize governmental liability “must give way to vindication of the federal right when that right is asserted in state court”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that principles of federalism, as well as the Supremacy Clause, dictate that a state law that conditions the right of recovery under section 1983 on compliance with a state rule designed to minimize governmental liability “must give way to vindication of the federal right when that right is asserted in state court”
- stating “[ajlthough it is true that the principal remedy Congress chose to provide injured persons was immediate access to federal courts, it did not leave the protection of such rights exclusively in the hands of the federal judiciary, and instead conferred concurrent jurisdiction on state courts as well”
- holding that a Wisconsin notice-of-claim statute did not apply to federal civil rights actions brought in state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the notice-of-claim requirements were preempted as inconsistent with federal law
- holding that Utah Governmental Immunity Act did not apply to constitutional takings claim under self-executing provision of Utah Constitution or Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Higgason v. Stogsdill — not on the Supreme Court's list
" Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 153, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988) (emphasis added), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Higgason v. Stogsdill, 818 N.E.2d 486, 489 (Ind.Ct.App.2004); see also Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539, 109 S.Ct. 1998, 104 L.Ed.2d 582 (1989) (noting that the chief goals of Section 1983 are "compensation and deterrence" (emphasis added)); Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S.…
Indiana Court of AppealsNov 30, 20042 citing opinionsby statuteother groundsunconfirmed confidenceRead it
Distinguished
Distinguished by Haywood v. Drown, 9 N.Y.3d 481 (2007)
Cases such as Howlett and Felder, relied upon by plaintiff and the dissent, are distinguishable from this case.
Distinguished by Warrington v. Village Supermarket, 328 N.J. Super. 410 (2000)
Cf. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 140, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 2308, 101 L.Ed.2d 123, 139 (1988) (state notice-of-claim provisions are inapplicable to civil rights actions founded on federal statute); Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 332-38, 537 A.2d 652, cert. denied sub nom, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey v. Fuchilla, 488 U.S. 826, 109 S.Ct. 75, 102 L.Ed.2d 51 (1988) (notice of claim provisions do not a…
Distinguished by MacArthur Rumbles v. Donald R. Hill Black and Beckett, 182 F.3d 1064 (1999)
487 U.S. 131, 140-41, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988) (state notice-of-claim statutes are inapplicable to section 1983 suits);
Distinguished by Sanchez v. Degoria, 733 So. 2d 1103 (1999)
Felder, they claim, is distinguishable.
The opinion
Justice White,
concurring.
It cannot be disputed that, if Congress had included a statute of limitations in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 , any state court that entertained a § 1983 suit would have to apply that statute of limitations. As the Court observed in an early case brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act of 1908, 35 Stat. 65 , 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., “[i]f [a federal Act] be available in a state court to found a right, and the record shows a lapse of *154 time after which the [A]ct says that no action shall be maintained, the action must fail in the courts of a State as in those of the United States.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Burnette, 239 U. S. 199, 201 (1915). See also Engel v. Davenport, 271 U. S. 33, 38-39 (1926); McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 357 U. S. 221, 228 (1958) (Brennan, J., concurring).
Similarly, where the Court has determined that a particular state statute of limitations ought to be borrowed in order to effectuate the congressional intent underlying a federal cause of action that contains no statute of limitations of its own, any state court that entertains the same federal cause of action must apply the same state statute of limitations. We made such a determination in Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261 (1985), which held that § 1983 suits must as a matter of federal law 1 be governed by the state statute of limitations applicable to tort suits for the recovery of damages for personal injuries. We reasoned that the choice of a single statute of limitations within each State was supported by “[t]he federal interests in uniformity, certainty, and the minimization of unnecessary litigation,” id., at 275, and that the choice of the personal-injury statute of limitations was supported by “the nature of the § 1983 remedy, and by the federal interest in ensuring that the borrowed period of limitations not discriminate against the federal civil rights remedy.” ' Id., at 276.
It has since been assumed that Wilson v. Garcia governs the timeliness of § 1983 suits brought in state as well as federal court. See, e. g., Russell v. Anchorage, 743 P. 2d 372, 374-375 , and n. 8 (Alaska 1987); Ziccardi v. Pennsylvania Dept. of General Services, 109 Pa. Commw. 628 , 634- *155 635, 527 A. 2d 183, 185-186 (1987); Walker v. Maruffi, 105 N. M. 763, 766-769, 737 P. 2d 544, 547-550 (App.), cert. denied, 105 N. M. 707, 736 P. 2d 985 (1987) (table); Maddocks v. Salt Lake City Corp., 740 P. 2d 1337, 1338-1339 (Utah 1987); 423 South Salina Street, Inc. v. Syracuse, 68 N. Y. 2d 474, 486-487; 503 N. E. 2d 63, 69-70 (1986), appeal dism’d, 481 U. S. 1008 (1987); Fuchilla v. Layman, 210 N. J. Super. 574, 582-583, 510 A. 2d 281, 286 (1986), aff’d, 109 N. J. 319, 537 A. 2d 652 (1988); Henderson v. State, 110 Idaho 308, 311 , 715 P. 2d 978, 981 , cert. denied, 477 U. S. 907 (1986); Frisby v. Board of Education of Boyle County, 707 S. W. 2d 359, 361 (Ky. App. 1986); Vanaman v. Palmer, 506 A. 2d 190 (Del. Super. 1986); Hanson v. Madison Service Corp., 125 Wis. 2d 138, 141 , 370 N. W. 2d 586, 588 (App. 1985).
The Wisconsin Supreme Court likewise assumed that Wilson v. Garcia governed which statute of limitations should apply to petitioner’s §1983 claim. 2 The court then effectively truncated the applicable limitations period, however, by dismissing petitioner’s § 1983 suit for failure to file a notice of claim within 120 days of the events at issue as required by Wis. Stat. §893.80 (1983 and Supp. 1987). 3 Hence, petitioner was allowed only about four months in which to investigate whether the facts and the law would support any claim *156 against respondents (or retain a lawyer who would do so), and to notify respondents of his claim, rather than the two or three years that he would have been allowed under Wisconsin law had he sought to assert a similar personal-injury claim against a private party. It is also unlikely that any other State would apply a 120-day limitations period — or, indeed, a limitations period of less than one year — to such a personal-injury claim. 4 This reflects a generally accepted belief among state policymakers that individuals who have suffered injuries to their personal rights cannot fairly be expected to seek redress within so short a period of time.
The application of the Wisconsin notice-of-claim statute to bar petitioner's § 1983 suit — which is “in reality, ‘an action for injury to personal rights’ ” 471 U. S., at 265 (quoting 731 F. 2d 640, 651 (CA10 1984) (opinion below)) — thus undermines the purposes of Wilson v. Garcia to promote “[t]he federal interests in uniformity, certainty, and the minimization of unnecessary litigation,” 471 U. S., at 275 , and assure that state procedural rules do not “discriminate against the federal civil rights remedy.” Id., at 276 . I therefore agree that in view of the adverse impact of Wisconsin’s notice-of-claim statute on the federal policies articulated in Wilson v. Garcia , the Supremacy Clause proscribes the statute’s application to § 1983 suits brought in Wisconsin state courts.
In explaining that the characterization of § 1983 claims for statute-of-limitations purposes is a question of federal law, we observed that “Congress surely did not intend to assign to state courts and legislatures a conclusive role in the formative function of defining and characterizing the essential elements of a federal cause of action.” 471 U. S., at 269 .
The court did not decide whether the § 1983 claim was to be governed by the 2-year statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts, Wis. Stat. § 893.57 (1983), or the 3-year statute of limitations applicable generally to “injuries to the person,” §893.54(1).
To be sure, § 893.80 provides that failure to file a notice of claim within the initial 120-day period “shall not bar an action on the claim if the . . . [governmental] subdivision or agency had actual notice of the claim and the claimant shows to the satisfaction of the court that the delay or failure to give the requisite notice has not been prejudicial to the defendant.” The facts of this case demonstrate, however, that the “actual notice” requirement is difficult to satisfy. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that respondents had not received “actual notice” of petitioner’s claim even though the local alderman had written directly to the chief of police requesting an investigation of the incident only three days after its occurrence. 139 Wis. 2d 614, 629-630 , 408 N. W.2d 19, 25-26 (1987).
See Shapiro, Choosing the Appropriate State Statute of Limitations for Section 1983 Claims After Wilson v. Garcia , 16 U. Balt. L. Rev. 242 , 245-246 (1987) (listing potentially applicable limitations periods of 26 States and District of Columbia); Comment, 17 Memphis St. U. L. Rev. 127, 136-137, n. 74 (1986) (listing potentially applicable limitations periods of 29 States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).