Idaho Code § 5-219

Section 5-219(5) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on assault claims.

Ginter v. Turner · filed 2025-07-16(5)

Idaho imposes a two-year statute of limitations on assault claims, limiting Plaintiffs’ claim to conduct that occurred after March 2023. See Idaho Code § 5-219(5).

An action for professional malpractice accrues only when objective proof supports the existence of some actual damage.

Chicoine v. Bignall · filed 1992-08-10(4)

Harmonizing the “some damage” rule and the “objectively ascertainable damage” standard, we conclude that an action for professional malpractice shall be deemed to have accrued for the purposes of I.C. § 5-219(4) only when there is objective proof that would support the existence of some actual damage.

Section 5-219(4)’s two-year period for a personal injury claim begins when objective medical proof supports the existence of actual injury.

Doe v. CUTTER BIOLOGICAL, a DIV. OF MILES INC. · filed 1994-02-24(4)

This court concludes that “some damage” occurred and John Doe’s injury was “objectively ascertainable” when John Doe tested positive for HIV in December 1991. It was not until that time that there was “objective medical proof’ to support the existence of plaintiffs injury. Thus, based on undisputed facts in the record, this court finds that, as a matter of law, it was not until December 1991 that Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations began to run.

Section 5-219 is a procedural statute of limitations that the forum applies in a diversity action despite a choice-of-law dispute.

Gallagher v. Allied Weldery, Inc. Wes Warren · filed 1992-08-26

However, the Supreme Court has squarely rejected any mandate that a statute of limitations be applied as a substantive rather than as a procedural rule where there is a choice of law issue in a diversity action.

Idaho Code § 5-219 requires libel or slander actions to be brought within two years of the wrongdoing, with accrual at the time of the wrongdoing rather than discovery.

Jarman v. Hale · filed 1992-09-29

I.C. § 5-219 requires that an action for libel or slander be brought within two years of the wrongdoing; in other words, a cause of action accrues at the time of the wrongdoing, rather than at the time of the discovery of the wrongful act.

Section 5-219(5) requires libel actions to be filed within two years, with the limitations period accruing when the wrongdoing occurs rather than when it is discovered.

Hoglan v. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A. · filed 1991-09-10(5)

Idaho Code § 5-219(5) provides that an action for libel must be brought within two years. ... “Under I.C. § 5-219, a cause of action accrues at the time of the wrongdoing, rather than at the time of discovery of the wrongful act.” ... Therefore, the statute began to run in November of 1983, barring any action after November of 1985. We hold that the claim for libel was barred by the statute of limitations, and as such, it was error for the trial judge to allow this cause of action to be submitted to the jury.

Section 5-219(4) bars extending the malpractice limitations period because of a continuing professional relationship or continuing consequences or damages.

Fairway Development Co. v. Petersen, Moss, Olsen, Meacham & Carr · filed 1993-12-22(4)

The Idaho legislature has specifically precluded extending the statute of limitations based upon any continuing professional relationship. I.C. § 5-219(4) provides that “the limitation period shall not be extended by reason of any continuing consequences or damages resulting therefrom or any continuing professional or commercial relationship between the injured party and the alleged wrongdoer....” Based upon this clear statement from the legislature, we hold that the doctrine of continuing representation in professional malpractice actions is specifically barred by statute.

Section 5-219(4) imposes a two-year limitations period, but summary judgment is improper when a factual dispute makes the date of “some damage” and thus accrual uncertain.

Thompson v. Pike · filed 1994-06-29(4)

In the initial appeal, this Court vacated the district court’s order granting Pike’s motion for summary judgment based on the narrow ground that there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the parties to an oral agreement entered into on July 31, 1987, between Pike and Vangas’ attorney, Mr. Mclver, intended the agreement to be binding, rendering unascertainable as a matter of law the date when “some damage occurred” and, therefore, precluding summary judgment on statute of limitation grounds. ... This Court’s Thompson I decision is controlling and the trial court’s judgment is precluded by the law of the case doctrine. ... Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a binding agreement was entered into on July 31, 1987, summary judgment in favor of Pike is inappropriate in this case.

Section 5-219(4) covers breaches of express warranties and express covenants occurring in the course of providing professional services.

Nerco Minerals Co. v. Morrison Knudsen Corp. · filed 2004-04-12(4)

However, a reading of the plain language of the statute shows Nerco’s assertion is wrong because breach of an express warranty or express covenant in the course of providing professional services would, arguably, constitute an act or omission as contemplated by the statute. If a party expressly warrants or covenants to do or not do something and they breach that, it constitutes an act or omission, which would fall within the scope of the statute. Therefore, it follows that express warranties and express covenants fall within the scope of the statute.

Real estate agents do not provide professional services for purposes of § 5-219(4)'s professional-malpractice statute of limitations.

Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc. · filed 2004-04-23(4)

We hold that real estate agents do not provide professional services for purposes of the professional malpractice statute of limitations in I.C. § 5-219(4).

Section 5-219(4) starts the two-year malpractice limitations period when some damage occurs, which here was the customer's default and bankruptcy rather than the earlier transaction.

Parsons Packing, Inc. v. Masingill · filed 2004-07-23(4)

For application of the statute of limitation some damage did not occur in 1992. Some damage occurred the date of default, April 14, 1998.

For a professional-malpractice claim, the two-year limitations period begins when the complained-of act or omission causes objectively ascertainable damages; continuing consequences do not extend it.

Ford v. Kehne · filed 2011-03-08(4)

The date of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Ford’s appeal in 2004 established objectively ascertainable damages for purposes of commencing the two-year statute of limitation within which to bring this action.

Under subsection (4), a professional-malpractice claim cannot begin to accrue until some damage has occurred.

Walsh v. Swapp Law · filed 2020-04-22(4)

However, under this Court’s interpretation of section 5-219(4), a malpractice cause of action cannot begin to accrue until “some damage” has occurred.

Idaho Code § 5-219 supplies a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which federal courts apply to § 1983 claims arising in Idaho.

Callan · filed 2026-06-09

“In Idaho, that limitations period is two years.” Mintun v. Davis, 2026 WL 161595, at *11 (D. Idaho Jan. 21, 2026) (citing Idaho Code § 5-219). ... Almost all of the complained-of acts in this case occurred prior to March 9, 2024. Any claims based on those events must, therefore, be dismissed unless Callan can plead facts from which the Court could conclude he is entitled to equitable tolling.

Subsection (4) supplies the two-year personal-injury limitations period for Idaho § 1983 actions, but relation back can prevent that period from barring an amended claim.

Martin v. School District No. 394 · filed 2005-07-14(4)

Thus, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions in Idaho must meet the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions established by Idaho Code § 5-219(4). ... Because the amended pleading arose out of the same conduct set forth in the original pleading and provided Defendants with fair notice of the occurrences called into question (the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs discharge), the § 1983 claim relates back to the original Complaint’s date and is not barred by Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations.

Section 5-219(4) supplies the two-year personal-injury statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions.

McCabe v. Craven · filed 2008-06-12(4)

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the applicable statute of limitations is found in Idaho Code § 5-219(4) above. Henderson v. State, 110 Idaho 308, 311, 715 P.2d 978, 981 (1986).

Section 5-219 supplies a two-year limitations period for federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Helburn v. Corizon Inc. · filed 2020-03-02

Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. Idaho Code § 5-219; see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985) (holding that state statute of limitation for personal injury actions governs § 1983 actions), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Section 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions filed in Idaho.

Meadows v. Breakie · filed 2022-02-03

The statute of limitation period for filing a § 1983 action in Idaho is two years.

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in Idaho.

Livia · filed 2025-12-05

The statute of limitation period for filing a § 1983 action in Idaho is two years.

Section 5-219 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims and governs federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Conner · filed 2026-01-02

Idaho Code § 5-219, setting a two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, governs federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho.

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions filed in Idaho.

Hoid · filed 2026-02-09

In addition to failing to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff’s claims are also time-barred. The statute of limitation period for filing a § 1983 action in Idaho is two years. Idaho Code § 5-219; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004). ... Under the “discovery rule,” a claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury” that is the basis of the claim. Lukovsky v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... All of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, regardless of the underlying constitutional right, are time-barred and legally frivolous.

Section 5-219(4)'s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions governs § 1983 claims in Idaho.

Zeyen v. Boise District 1 · filed 2021-11-29(4)

“The statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. . . . Thus, the Court must apply Idaho’s two-year limitation period for personal injury actions instead of the limitations period urged by the plaintiffs set forth in Idaho’s inverse condemnation statute.”

Section 5-219(4) imposes a two-year limitations period on emotional-distress claims, subject to the continuing-tort rule when harmful conduct continues into the limitations window.

Yeaman v. City of Burley · filed 2023-04-10(4)

A claim for emotional distress must be brought within two years after the events or occurrences underlying the claim. Idaho Code § 5-219(4); see also Feltmann v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-414-EJL-MHW, 2012 WL 1189913, at *2 (D. Idaho Mar. 20, 2012). But emotional distress claims “often involve a series of acts over a period of time,” rather than one single act. Curtis v. Firth, 123 Idaho 598, 604 (1993). Accordingly, the Idaho Supreme Court has noted that “the concept of continuing tort” applies to claims for emotional distress. Id. Under that theory, a claim is timely whenever the harmful conduct is “part of an unceasing stream of tortious acts” continuing into the limitations window. Johnson v. McPhee, 147 Idaho 455, 464 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). Yeaman claims that Hodge engaged in a continuous stream of offensive and harassing conduct, beginning with verbal and physical sexual advances, and morphing into hostility, isolation, and sabotage as she rejected those advances. Although many of the alleged incidents occurred more than two years before Yeaman brought this action, they were part of the stream of tortious acts underlying Yeaman’s claim for emotional distress that continued until her termination in February of 2020. The Court therefore will not dismiss her emotional distress claims as untimely.

Section 5-219(4) provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which applies to § 1983 actions filed in Idaho.

Scheveck v. City of Boise · filed 2017-12-22(4)

The district court properly dismissed Scheveck’s action as time-barred because Scheveck did not submit to the court any document that functioned as a complaint before the applicable statute of limitations had run. See Idaho Code § 5- 219(4) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Canatella, 486 F.3d at 1132 (the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies in § 1983 suits); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”); cf. Hauschulz v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 147 P.3d 94, 98- 99 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006) (holding that a filing explicitly intended to function as a complaint and submitted to the court clerk’s office is sufficient to initiate action).

Section 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for civil rights actions.

Arledge v. Boise City Attorney · filed 2021-09-28

Idaho Code § 5- 219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for civil rights actions. ... The statute of limitations for his claim would thus expire two years later, on March 29, 1991. This means that his statute of limitations expired roughly thirty years ago. Consequently, the statute of limitations bars Arledge’s claims.

Section 5-219 supplies a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions that governs § 1983 claims in Idaho.

Blackhawk v. City of Chubbuck · filed 2006-11-24(1)

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against Frasure are governed by Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions set forth in Idaho Code § 5-219(1).

Section 5-219(4) provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Idaho.

Hallstrom v. CITY OF GARDEN CITY, ID. · filed 1991-05-03(4)

Robert Hallstrom did not commence this action within two years of January 23, 1983, but instead waited almost four years, until December 22, 1987. Therefore, to the extent this action states claims by Mr. Hallstrom against the Garden City Defendants and the Ada County Defendants, such claims are barred by Idaho Code § 5-219(4).

Section 5-219(4)'s discovery exception does not apply to McCormack's conversion claim, which is governed by the conversion-of-instruments limitations statute.

McCormack v. Caldwell · filed 2011-07-01(4)

However, McCormack does not point us to, and we have not found, any Idaho authority allowing discovery exceptions for the running of a statute of limitation other than those authorized by I.C. §§ 5-218(4) and 5-219(4), which are inapplicable here.

Section 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

D.A. v. Meridian Joint School District No. 2 · filed 2013-02-12

Based on the above discussion, the Court finds that the two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries under Idaho Code § 5-219 applies in this case.

Section 5-219(4) provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, barring a § 1983 action filed more than two years after the claim arose.

Roles v. Armfield · filed 2015-02-27(4)

The district court properly dismissed Roles’s due process claim as barred by the statute of limitations because Roles filed this action more than two years after his claim against defendant Armfield arose. See Idaho Code § 5-219(4) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations and tolling laws apply to § 1983 actions; federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues, which is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action).

Section 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, which governs § 1983 claims.

Hayes v. Idaho Department of Corrections · filed 2019-07-01

The Court also notes that the proposed newly-modified claim—based on the April 2014 allegation and substituting that date in place of the July 4, 2015 allegation—is subject to dismissal for the additional reason that it is untimely. See Idaho Code § 5-219 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985) (holding that state statute of limitation for personal injury actions governs § 1983 actions), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

The statute sets a two-year limitations period for professional-malpractice, personal-injury, and wrongful-death actions, and that period governs federal civil-rights claims arising in Idaho.

Smith v. Rawson · filed 2019-09-23

The statute of limitations period for filing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is determined by the statute of limitations period for personal injuries in the state where the claim arose. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (later overruled only as to claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, not applicable here). Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.

Section 5-219 supplies a two-year limitations period for federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Morgan v. Stevenson · filed 2019-11-01

Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. Idaho Code § 5-219; see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985) (holding that state statute of limitation for personal injury actions governs § 1983 actions), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Idaho Code § 5-219 supplies a two-year limitations period for federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Nelson v. Tewalt · filed 2019-12-09

Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. Idaho Code § 5-219; see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985) (holding that state statute of limitation for personal injury actions governs § 1983 actions), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Section 5-219(5) imposes a two-year limitations period for defamation claims, while § 5-219(4) imposes a two-year period for intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims; the periods barred these claims filed more than two years after the alleged acts.

Guion v. Bonner Homeless Transitions · filed 2020-04-02(5), (4)

In Idaho, the statute of limitations for a defamation action is two years. Idaho Code § 5-219(5). ... The statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Idaho is two years. Idaho Code § 5-219(4); see also Ferro v. Soc’y of Saint Pius X, 149 P.3d 813, 815 (Idaho 2006) (applying the two-year statute of limitations to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress). ... First, this claim is barred by Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations. Again, the latest possible date in this case that Defendants could have inflicted distress on Guion is July 8, 2015. Guion filed her Complaint on May 22, 2018, over two years later. Thus, the statute of limitations clearly prevents Guion from bringing this claim.

Section 5-219 establishes a two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, including federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Cavallero v. State of Idaho · filed 2020-04-22

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil nights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.

Section 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for professional-malpractice, personal-injury, and wrongful-death actions, and that period governs federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Goodrick v. Idaho Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-22

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is tolled while the inmate exhausts administrative grievance procedures pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

Section 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for professional-malpractice, personal-injury, and wrongful-death actions, and that period governs federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Scott v. Thompson · filed 2020-12-03

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims, including claims brought under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Mickelsen v. Eastern Idaho Technical College · filed 2020-12-03

The Court finds, and the parties agree, that Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries under Idaho Code § 5-219 applies to claims brought under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the rehabilitation Act.

Section 5-219 requires personal injury and negligence actions in Idaho to be filed within two years after the claim arose.

Johnson v. State of Idaho · filed 2021-08-09

In Idaho, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions, including negligence actions, requires that an injured party file suit within two years after the claim arose.

Section 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for professional malpractice, personal-injury, and wrongful-death actions, and that period governs federal civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Van Hook v. State of Idaho · filed 2022-02-04

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for a § 1983 action filed in Idaho.

Marchant v. Richardson · filed 2022-06-03

The limitations period for filing a § 1983 action in Idaho is two years. Idaho Code § 5-219; see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for filing a § 1983 action in Idaho.

Clary v. Kootenai Co. Sheriff,et al. · filed 2023-07-06

The statute of limitation period for filing a § 1983 action in Idaho is two years. Idaho Code § 5-219; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Section 5-219 bars a suit when its statute-of-limitations period has lapsed.

Johnson v. State of Idaho · filed 2023-07-20

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s complaint with prejudice because the statute of limitations on his suit under Idaho Code § 5-219 had lapsed.

Section 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims in Idaho.

Moore v. Valley III · filed 2023-12-14

In Idaho, the statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims is two years.

Idaho Code § 5-219 imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal-injury claims, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Rogers v. Benewah County Sheriff's Office · filed 2024-03-12

In Idaho, the statute of limitations period for personal injury claims, as well as for § 1983 claims, is two years. See Idaho Code § 5-219; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 279-80 (1985) (holding that the statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims is the statute of limitations period for personal injuries in the state where the claim arose), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Section 5-219 supplies a two-year limitations period for Idaho personal-injury claims, including § 1983 claims, running from when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury.

Bartholomew v. Kralik · filed 2024-07-08

Section 1983 claims adopt the statute of limitations from the forum state’s personal injury statute. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). In Idaho, personal injury claims have a statute of limitations period of two years. See I.C. § 5-219. The statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388. Thus, to comply with the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Idaho, the lawsuit must be commenced within two years from the date the plaintiff had reason to know of the alleged injury.

Section 5-219 requires personal injury lawsuits against government officials to be commenced within two years of the incident.

Stacey v. County of Madison · filed 2024-08-06

Under Idaho law, personal injury lawsuits against government officials must be commenced within two years of the incident. See Idaho Code § 5-219.

Section 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which supplies the limitations period for § 1983 claims in Idaho.

Smith v. Cousins · filed 2024-09-11

In Idaho, that limitations period is two years. Idaho Code § 5-219.

Section 5-219 sets a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims and governs federal civil-rights actions brought in Idaho.

McDermott v. Idaho Department of Corrections · filed 2024-12-02

Idaho Code § 5-219 designates a two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries and governs federal civil rights actions brought in Idaho.

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and that two-year period governs federal civil rights claims arising in Idaho.

Crosby · filed 2026-01-12

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.

Section 5-219 provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, and that period governs § 1983 civil-rights actions arising in Idaho.

Wilbourn · filed 2026-04-03

Of note, however, the statute of limitations period for filing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is determined by the statute of limitations period for personal injuries in the state where the claim arose. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280-81 (1985) (later overruled only as to claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, not applicable here); Idaho Code § 5-219 (providing for a two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, which governs federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho). Wilbourn thus has two years from the incident he complains of to file a Section 1983 claim.

Section 5-219(4) does not permit equitable tolling of its limitations period.

McCabe v. Olivia Craven · filed 2007-04-19(4)

We therefore conclude equitable tolling is not available to McCabe under I.C. § 5-219(4).

Section 5-219’s two-year limitations period for parents’ own claims is not tolled by their injured child’s minority.

Taft v. Jumbo Foods, Inc. · filed 2013-11-26

They argue it would be more convenient if they were able to have their suit coincide with Trevor’s suit to recover in his own right upon attaining the age of majority, but neither I.C. § 5-219 nor I.C. § 5- 230 provide for tolling a statute of limitations for actions wherein adults seek damages.

The two-year limitations period for intentional infliction of emotional distress begins when a continuing course of tortious conduct ceases.

Curtis v. Firth · filed 1993-03-23(4)

For that reason we recognize the concept of continuing tort, as it was originally applied in Farber, should be extended to apply in other limited contexts, including particularly intentional infliction of emotional distress. We note, however, that embracing this concept in the area of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress does not throw open the doors to permit filing these actions at any time. The courts which have adopted this continuing tort theory have generally stated that the statute of limitations is only held in abeyance until the tortious acts cease. See, e.g., Page, 729 F.2d at 818 and Twyman v. Twyman, 790 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. App.1990). At that point the statute begins to run.