Statute Annotations › Illinois › 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-202

735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-202

Two-year limitations period for personal injury actions: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Illinois
Case notes
488
Cited in passing
163
Citing cases indexed
713
Case dates
1993–2026
Screened through
2026-06-24
Checked for later law changes
2026-10-20
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

651 citing cases reviewed of 713 in the citation index: 488 interpreted the section (annotated below), 163 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-06-24 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-202?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Later changes in law

Changes after the earliest notes below. A note stating a rule one of these changed is marked "Law changed since".

  • 2004-05-03 Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. held that § 1981 claims made possible by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 use the federal four-year period in 28 U.S.C. § 1658, while claims available under earlier § 1981 continue to borrow the state period. Source
  • 2005-07-01 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 added an express two-year period for IDEA due process complaints, subject to an explicit state period and statutory exceptions; courts no longer need to borrow § 13-202 for those complaints. Source
  • 2008-01-01 Public Act 94-1113 added tolling for certain civil claims arising from a confession or information compelled by threatened or actual imminent bodily harm, until incarceration ends or the prosecution ends favorably, whichever is later; the new tolling does not apply to local governments covered by the Tort Immunity Act. Source
  • 2016-01-01 Public Act 99-90 limited the section’s reference to criminal conversation actions to claims preserved by the Criminal Conversation Abolition Act. Source

Contribution claims

Section 13-202’s two-year personal injury limitation period also applies to a contribution claim arising from a pending personal injury action.

Caballero v. Rockford Punch Press & Manufacturing Co. · filed 1993-03-31

The applicable statute of limitations for filing a personal injury action provides that the suit must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues. (735 ILCS 5/13—202 (West 1992).) ... Allen therefore did not seek leave to file its contribution claim within two years after the contribution claim accrued. It follows that the applicable two-year statute of limitations for filing the contribution claim had expired.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year period for personal injury actions governs the time to seek contribution when the personal injury suit is refiled under a one-year deadline.

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Baur's Opera House · filed 1998-04-22

However, the stat­ute of limi­ta­tions ap­pli­cable to the underlying cause of action, i.e. , Stearnes' per­son­al inju­ry law­suit, was two years. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (West 1992). Thus, Baur's had until April 1995, or two years from the day it received no­tice of the state law­suit, to file an action seeking contribu­tion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year personal injury limitations period governs a contribution claim arising from a personal injury action, even when the plaintiff refiled the action under a one-year period.

Cincinnati Insurance v. Baur's Opera House, Inc. · filed 1998-06-03

However, the statute of limitations applicable to the underlying cause of action, i.e., Stearnes’ personal injury lawsuit, was two years. See 735 ILCS 5/13 — 202 (West 1992). Thus, Baur’s had until April 1995, or two years from the day it received notice of the state lawsuit, to file an action seeking contribution.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year period applies to a contribution claim arising from a pending personal injury action.

Lin v. City of Chicago · filed 1995-10-12

Personal injury actions are typically subject to a two-year statute of limitations. (735 ILCS 5/13 — 202 (West 1992).) The City was therefore entitled to two years from the date the contribution cause of action accrued to file suit against Balbo.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limitations period for federal civil rights claims

Law changed since Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. (2004) limits this state-borrowed period to § 1981 claims available before the Civil Rights Act of 1991; claims made possible by that Act use 28 U.S.C. § 1658’s four-year period.

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for claims under §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985, regardless of whether the defendant is a municipality.

Wolf v. City of Chicago Heights · filed 1993-06-16

The Court has regarded claims brought under §§ 1981 and 1983 as the equivalent of personal injury claims, ... and because the statute of limitations on personal injury claims in Illinois is two years, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, federal courts sitting in Illinois have applied a two-year statute of limitations to §§ 1981 and 1983 claims. ... Goodman stressed the value of uniformity, and this court’s holding that §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985 share the same statute of limitations — regardless of the status of the defendant — respects the logic of the Goodman decision.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims brought in Illinois.

Horton v. Marovich · filed 1996-04-30

In Illinois, the statute of limitations applied to section 1983 actions is the personal injury statute of limitations, with a two-year limitation period. ... The two-year personal injury statute of limitations that applies to section 1983 actions also applies to section 1985(3) actions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for civil rights actions arising in Illinois; an alleged earlier submission does not satisfy that period when the plaintiff unreasonably delays pursuing the filing.

Jones v. Dave Julian, Allen Vehrs, Michael Camelli, Anthony Bartolomei, and David Basile, of the Chicago Heights P · filed 1997-05-13

The district court dismissed them all as filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations for civil rights actions arising in Illinois, 735 ILCS 5/13-202; see Wilson v. Giesen, 956 F.2d 738, 740-42 (7th Cir.1992); Kalimara v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 879 F.2d 276 (7th Cir.1989). ... To recognize the supposedly lost or misplaced October 1993 filings as having satisfied the statute of limitations would defeat the time limit's purpose of requiring the timely presentation of claims, see United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979), and would abuse the concept of constructive filing or relation back.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for federal § 1983 claims arising in Illinois, while the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year period governs state tort claims against local government employees.

Long v. Williams · filed 2001-08-06

However, although the two-year statute of limitations under 735 ILCS 5/13-202 applies to federal claims under section 1983, “a federal court applies to state-law claims the same limitations period a state court would apply.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year personal injury limitations period applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Ross v. Illinois · filed 2002-09-26

The statute of limitations for a section 1985 claim is governed by state law, Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 279, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), and so the Illinois two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies in this case, 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Sanders v. Venture Stores, Inc., 56 F.3d 771, 775 n. 2 (7th Cir.1995).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury suits that applies to claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Board of Education v. Wolinsky Ex Rel. Lance C. · filed 1993-12-23

The two-year Illinois statute of limitations for personal injury suits, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, is thus applicable to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Walters v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 1995-04-04

Plaintiff also apparently tried to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. The two-year Illinois personal injury statute of limitations has passed, and thus her filing of a complaint on August 9, 1991 was untimely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Since July 1, 2005, the IDEA itself sets the ordinary two-year deadline for due process complaints, subject to its state-law and statutory exceptions, rather than borrowing Illinois’s personal injury period.

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for requests brought under § 1415(b)(2) of the IDEA.

Oak Park & River Forest High School Dist. No. 200 v. Illinois State Board of Education · filed 1995-05-16

Therefore, we hold that Illinois’ general personal injury statute, 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (“§ 5/13— 202”), which provides for a two-year limitations period, is the statute most analogous to requests brought under § 1415(b)(2).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year limitations period in § 5/13-202 applies to Bivens actions arising in Illinois.

Porter v. United States General Services Administration · filed 1998-07-22

We have long held that the proper statute of limitations for federal civil rights actions arising out of events in Illinois is two years, see 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (two year statute of limitations for personal injury actions), and we have expressly disapproved of the reasoning in Johnson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period bars federal civil rights claims filed more than two years after the alleged act.

Small, Jimmie E. v. Chao, Elaine L. · filed 2005-02-14

On the face of Small’s complaint, it is apparent that any other federal civil rights claims that he might be able to state against IDCCA are barred by the applicable two-year statute limitations. See Sanders v. Venture Stores, Inc., 56 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 1995); 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (2002).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 false arrest claims arising in Illinois.

Brooks v. City of Chicago · filed 2009-05-01

The applicable statute of limitations for a § 1983 false arrest claim arising in Illinois is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (2009). ... The only arrest that Brooks challenges as made without probable cause occurred in May 2004, more than two years before Brooks filed this lawsuit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to Rehabilitation Act § 504 claims filed in Illinois.

Rutledge v. Illinois Department of Childre · filed 2015-05-05

We turn to whether the plaintiff’s claim is barred by Illi- nois’ two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury suits, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, which we’ve held—for example in Conley v. Village of Bedford Park, 215 F.3d 703, 710 n. 5 (7th Cir. 2000)—to apply to suits filed in Illinois under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for civil rights actions in Illinois.

Drapes v. Hardy · filed 2018-01-16

There is a two-year statute of limitations for civil rights actions in Illinois. See, e.g., Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2008); 735 ILCS § 5/13-202. Plaintiff’s claims accrued, at the latest, some time in 2013, when he underwent surgery.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year personal injury limitations period applies to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, but dismissal is improper when the pleadings do not establish that the claims are untimely.

Lopez-Betancourt v. Loyola University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine · filed 2017-12-15

The Court cannot determine from the pleadings or the additional facts alleged by Plaintiff in his declaration that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to Rehabilitation Act claims in Illinois.

Quinn v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2018-09-07

Thus, Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim must “be commenced within 2 years next after the cause of action accrued.” 735 ILCS 5/13–202. ... Borrowing the two-year personal injury statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim is untimely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year limitations period for personal injury actions applies to § 1981 discriminatory hiring claims based on conduct before an employment contract forms.

Yates v. H&M International Transportation Inc · filed 2019-07-09

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Absent a valid post-formation claim, Plaintiffs’ claims fall under the pre-1991 amended version of § 1981 and are therefore subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for Illinois personal injury claims, which applies to Bivens claims arising from injuries in Illinois.

Douds v. USA · filed 2020-03-03

Plaintiff’s injury occurred in Illinois, which imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal-injury claims. 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 721-22 (7th Cir. 2017). ... Plaintiff did not file this suit until more than six years later on May 22, 2018—well beyond the two-year statute of limitations applicable to his claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to Title VI claims brought in Illinois.

Monroe v. Columbia College Chicago · filed 2021-03-19

The two-year period in Illinois for personal injury claims applies, and Monroe’s Title VI claim was therefore untimely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to Bivens claims arising from injuries in Illinois.

Hammack v. Kruse · filed 2022-03-31

Hammack’s injury occurred in Illinois, where the applicable statute of limitations is two years. See 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Title IX claims in Illinois, including claims involving childhood sexual abuse.

Greene v. Woodlawn Unit School District 209 · filed 2023-09-25

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Title IX claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitation applicable to personal injury actions, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, and not the longer limitation period contained in the Illinois Childhood Sexual Abuse Act, 735 ILCS 5/13-202.2.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Rehabilitation Act claims in Illinois.

Ledbetter v. Freeman · filed 2024-05-09

The Court has already disposed of Ledbetter’s Title VI claim, so it need only look now to the RA and the FMLA. In Illinois, both have a two-year statute of limitations, but the FMLA period is expanded to 3-years for a willful violation. Bush v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 990 F.2d 928, 933 (7th Cir. 1993) (RA borrows Illinois’ 2-year personal injury statute of limitations, 735 ILCS 5/13-202); see Rutledge v. Ill. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 785 F.3d 258, 260 (7th Cir. 2015) (RA); 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1)-(2) (two-year limitations period for FMLA unless willful, where three-year limitations period applies). Generally, that means any RA or FMLA claim that occurred before October 16, 2021, is time-barred. ... As for Ledbetter’s RA claim for failure to reinstate him as a driver in 2021 because of his back injury, that claim is time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period applied to First Amendment retaliation claims brought in Illinois.

Bouto v. Guevara · filed 2024-09-30

Charges were filed against Plaintiff in 1993. The applicable statute of limitations is two years. Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110, 1113 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13–202 and Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007)). As a result, Defendant Officers’ motion to dismiss Count XIII is granted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims in Illinois, including Bivens claims arising there.

Ervin v. Williams · filed 2025-08-13

Plaintiff’s injuries occurred in Illinois, and a 2-year statute of limitation governs personal injury claims under Illinois law. 735 ILCS § 5/13-202; Cesal, 851 F.3d at 721-22. ... Plaintiff commenced this action well beyond the applicable 2-year limitations period. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims in Counts 1, 2, and 3 are time-barred and shall be dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 and Title VI claims brought in Illinois.

Zayed · filed 2025-12-03

In Illinois, the statute of limitations is two years “after the cause of action accrued.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13–202 (2005); Flynn v. Donnelly, 793 Fed. Appx. 431, 434 (7th Cir. 2019); Lewis v. City of Chi., 914 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir. 2019).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limitations period for Section 1983 actions

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Section 1983 actions arising in Illinois.

Reents v. Board of Educ. of School Dist. No. 150, Peoria County, Ill. · filed 1993-06-16

Reents invites us to re-examine and overrule the court's holding in Farrell v. McDonough, 966 F.2d 279 (7th Cir.1992) and Kalimara v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 879 F.2d 276 (7th Cir.1989) (per curiam), that section 1983 cases arising in Illinois are governed by the state's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims (735 ILCS 5/13-202 (1992 State Bar Edition), formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch 110, p 13-202). We decline to do so, and emphasize that the court has consistently applied the two year limitations period to section 1983 actions filed in Illinois since 1986.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 personal injury claims arising in Illinois.

Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of Hononegah School Dist. 207 · filed 1993-09-30

In this case, the applicable limitations period is Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims in Illinois.

Williams v. Peters · filed 1995-01-24

The statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including Section 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Murphy v. Justus · filed 1995-04-07

Accordingly, we have consistently held that Sec. 1983 actions in Illinois are subject to the two-year limitation period of Sec. 202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for a Bivens action in Illinois.

Del Raine v. Gary L. Henman, Harvey Brooks, P.G. Keppler · filed 1995-10-24

A two-year statute of limitations applies to this action. See Kalimara v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 879 F.2d 276 (7th Cir.1989); 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Murphy v. Burckhardt · filed 1996-01-19

The two year statute of limitations for Murphy's claims thus expired on September 13, 1987, nearly two years before Murphy filed the present suit. Accordingly, we hold that the district court correctly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations Murphy's claims against those defendants who were served with process.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period bars a wrongful arrest claim filed more than two years after the arrest.

Reed v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, John Griffin, Detective, W. Murphy, Detective · filed 1996-05-02

However, his case was complicated from the start because he failed to file his claim for wrongful arrest or detention within two years of his arrest, and thus that claim was timebarred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Aulvin v. Wabash County, a Municipal Corporation · filed 1997-06-16

The state's general statute of limitations for personal injury claims is applied to all § 1983 claims, which for Illinois is a two-year limit. Farrell v. McDonough, 966 F.2d 279, 280-82 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1084 (1993); 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Aulvin's arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by Farrell.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions in Illinois, measured from the injury giving rise to the claim.

Lucien v. Jockisch · filed 1998-01-07

In Illinois, this period is two years’. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-202. Thus, Lucien’s complaint is time-barred only if the events giving rise to his cause of action occurred more than two years prior to his filing suit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions filed in Illinois.

Ashafa v. City of Chicago · filed 1998-06-01

Therefore, under the analysis outlined in Owens, the correct statute of limitations for § 1983 actions filed in Illinois is two years as set forth in § 202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions filed in Illinois.

Fred Kirchhoff and Wanda Kirchhoff v. City of Aurora, a Municipal Corporation · filed 1998-08-28

This circuit has consistently held that the appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 cases filed in Illinois is two years as set forth in 735 ILCS § 5/13-202." ... Therefore, to the extent that the Kirchhoffs were denied licenses within two years of filing suit, those constitutional claims are not time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Kielczynski v. Village of LaGrange, Ill. · filed 1998-09-08

The alleged actions occurred in Illinois and the appropriate statute of limitations period for a Section 1983 claim is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Accordingly, an action must be filed within two years of the alleged unlawful employment practice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions that also applies to § 1983 actions brought in Illinois.

Love v. Cook County, Illinois · filed 2000-01-28

The Seventh Circuit has held that the two-year limitations period provided in 735 ILCS 5/13-202 controls Illinois-based § 1983 actions. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim for the period from May 29, 1995 through February 22, 1997 is barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Henderson v. Village of Dixmoor · filed 2000-06-15

Under Illinois law, the statute of limitations for personal jury actions is two years. 735 Ill.Comp.Stat. 5/13-202. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are subject to a two-year limitations period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Section 1983 actions filed in Illinois.

Carlos Henderson and Charlie Richardson v. Officer Dennis Bolanda, Star No. 32 · filed 2001-05-16

The correct statute of limitations for Section 1983 actions filed in Illinois is two years as set forth in 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions filed in federal court in Illinois.

Mitchell, Alonzo v. Donchin, Emanuel · filed 2002-04-09

Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/13-202, the statute of limitations for section 1983 cases filed in federal court is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to section 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Day v. Conwell · filed 2003-02-18

Therefore, section 1983 claims in Illinois are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Baskin v. City of Des Plaines, a Municipal Corporation, and Bruce Sotirakis, Individually and in His Official Ca · filed 1998-03-17

- Accordingly, under Illinois law, Mr. Baskin’s § 1983 claim against Officer Sotirakis is subject to a two-year limitations period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois, measured from when the claim accrues.

Love v. Sheahan · filed 2001-03-30

The Seventh Circuit holds that state law, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, sets a two-year period of limitations for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois. ... Additional facts are needed to determine the precise contours of Love’s procedural due process claim and when his claim accrued. Taking all inferences in Love’s favor at this stage of the litigation, it is not beyond doubt that Love can prove no set of facts establishing that his claim is within the period of limitations. Therefore, Defendants’ motion is denied without prejudice as to the statute of limitations issue.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for Illinois personal injury claims, which courts apply to section 1983 claims.

Manos v. Caira · filed 2001-03-30

In Illinois, personal injury claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Burke v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees · filed 2001-04-30

Therefore, Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions is applicable to the case at hand.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Malone v. Ryan · filed 2002-09-13

Therefore, all § 1983 claims filed in Illinois are subject to the two-year statute of limitations in 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Wallace v. City of Chicago · filed 2004-03-30

The appropriate statute of limitations period for Section 1983 claims filed in Illinois ... is two years. 735 ILCS § 5/13-202; Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir.1998). It is clear that, except for his denial of a fair trial claim, which we will address below, Wallace’s Section 1983 claims are time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including § 1983 actions arising in Illinois.

Hileman v. Maze · filed 2004-06-04

Applying this framework, the district court first took note of the fact that Illinois has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, see 735 ILCS 5/13— 202, and that this is the period to apply to a § 1983 case. That much is uncontroversial and clearly correct.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Evans v. City of Chicago · filed 2006-01-06

The statute of limitations applicable to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Illinois is the same two-year provision which governs personal injury actions in the state, 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides the two-year limitations period applied to Section 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Foryoh v. Hannah-Porter · filed 2006-04-18

Thus, as established by Illinois law, the appropriate statute of limitations for Plaintiffs federal claims is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Orange v. Burge · filed 2006-08-11

Under Illinois law, the appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is two years under 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Illinois.

Foryoh, Prince E. v. Triton College · filed 2006-09-26

It is well-settled, however, that the two-year period is the appropriate statute of limitations in Illinois for § 1983 claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for a § 1983 excessive-force claim involving personal injury.

Bahler, Daniel G. v. Lopez, Kenny · filed 2007-05-10

Bahler’s § 1983 “shock gun” claim is subject to the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injuries under Illinois law, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, Evans v. City of Chi., 434 F.3d 916, 934 (7th Cir. 2006), and his claim accrued the day he was injured, February 3, 2004, see Evans, 434 F.3d at 934.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising from conduct in Illinois.

Finwall v. City of Chicago · filed 2007-05-16

The statute of limitations for constitutional claims brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 is the same as the personal injury statute of limitations of the state in which the conduct occurred. ... Under Illinois law, that period is two years. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Levy, Charles D. v. Pappas, Maria · filed 2007-12-21

The applicable statute of limitations here, which we borrow from Illinois, is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Wallace v. City of Chicago · filed 2004-10-29

In regards to the first motion for summary judgment before this court, the court granted Roy’s and Kato’s summary judgment motion on Wallace’s Fourth Amendment claims because they were time-barred by a two year statute of limitations applied to all § 1983 claims filed in Illinois. ... Since Wallace filed his Fourth Amendment claim more than four years after it became actionable, it is still time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 false arrest claims brought in Illinois.

Wallace, Andre v. Kato, Kristen · filed 2006-03-08

Wallace’s false arrest claim is subject to the two-year statute of limitations supplied by Illinois law under 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for a federal false arrest claim brought in Illinois.

Wallace v. City of Chicago, Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy · filed 2006-03-08

Wallace's false arrest claim is subject to the two-year statute of limitations supplied by Illinois law under 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Illinois.

Johnson v. Dossey · filed 2008-02-12

Running through the briefing in this case, though, is the argument, relied on by the district court in dismissing the original complaint, that Johnson’s claims are barred by the 2-year Illinois statute of limitations set out in 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. That is the applicable statute of limitation, but defendants misapprehend the appropriate accrual date for Johnson’s cause of action. ... It follows, then, that the claim based on a Brady violation did not accrue until Johnson was acquitted on September 2, 2005. Her complaint here was timely filed on February 10, 2006.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Harris v. Illinois · filed 2010-11-09

Harris’s § 1983 claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. See Williams v. Lampe, 399 F.3d 867, 870 (7th Cir.2005); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. Harris concedes that her § 1983 claims against the individual defendants may be based only on events arising after May 21, 2007. Her suspension and termination occurred within this time period, and she alleges that Sigler, Denning, and Walker took these actions based on her race. Thus, Harris’s § 1981 and § 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities, as limited by the statute of limitations, survive scrutiny at this stage.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period that governs § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Williams v. City of Chicago · filed 2011-03-14

In Illinois, the pertinent limitations provision requires a would-be plaintiff to bring suit within two years of a cause of action’s accrual.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Illinois, measured from when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury.

McDonald v. White · filed 2012-02-15

A federal court borrows the applicable state statute of limitations for § 1983 (and similar) claims, see Wilson v. Garda, 471 U.S. 261, 269, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007); Sanders v. Venture Stores, Inc., 56 F.3d 771, 775 n. 2 (7th Cir.1995), and in Illinois, the statute of limitations for such claims is two years from when a plaintiff knows or should know of his injury. ... McDonald should have known that he was injured in 2005, when, he alleges, Will County was required to, but did not, return bail bond money to him. Therefore his suit is several years too late.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Woods v. City of Rockford · filed 2010-03-01

In its motion, the City argued in part that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations that governs § 1983 suits in Illinois. ... The district court was correct to find the plaintiffs’ claims time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Illinois, including claims alleging pecuniary losses.

Cueto v. Thomas · filed 2010-05-26

As to his damages claim against the ARDC officer, Cueto argues that the district court erred by applying a two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, rather than a five-year “catch-all” statute, 735 ILCS 5/13-205. He reasons that his claim is not for a “personal injury” because he alleges pecuniary losses rather than bodily or psychological harm. We have repeatedly stated, however, that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Illinois is two years, not five.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Granger v. Rauch · filed 2010-07-22

As mentioned above, the applicable statute of limitations in Illinois is two years. See 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Walden v. City of Chicago · filed 2010-12-21

In this case, there is no dispute that the Illinois statute of limitations of two years governs for purposes of Walden’s claims brought under Section 1983. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Wilson v. GROZE · filed 2011-08-01

Because Wilson’s cause of action arose in this state, Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations applies. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. ... Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations gave Wilson until November 24, 2009 to file his suit. Since his complaint was not received by the circuit clerk until December 1, 2009, it falls just outside the two-year window, and thus fails as a matter of law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Illinois § 1983 claims, subject to Illinois tolling rules.

Granger v. Rauch · filed 2011-12-22

Section 1983 borrows not only the state statute of limitations for personal-injury claims but also all related state tolling rules. ... As mentioned above, the applicable statute of limitations in Illinois is two years. See 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Draper v. Martin · filed 2011-12-30

In Illinois, the statute of limita- tions period for § 1983 claims is two years, 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007), and the claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows or should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated,” Hileman v. Maze, 367 F.3d 694, 696 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Kelly v. City of Chicago, 4 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir. 1993)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois, including claims involving failure to protect a child from sexual abuse.

Woods v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2013-03-25

In line with Wilson and Owens, this court has consistently held that the limitations period applicable to § 1983 actions brought in Illinois is the two-year period for general personal injury actions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions in Illinois.

Jackson v. White · filed 2014-10-27

We agree with the defendants that Jackson’s complaint is barred by the two-year state of limitations for § 1983 actions in Illinois. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir. 2011).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Gekas v. Vasiliades · filed 2016-03-01

The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Illinois is two years. Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110, 1113 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-202 and Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 ... F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007)). ... His March 18, 2010, complaint is clearly time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to Illinois Section 1983 claims, including claims arising from childhood sexual abuse.

Woods v. Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2012-07-27

Accordingly, because Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations applies to this case and Woods has failed to allege any grounds for the tolling of the statute, despite being offered the opportunity to do so, his Section 1983 claim is time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides Illinois’s general two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which governs § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Hampton v. Sabie · filed 2012-08-10

In § 1983 actions, federal courts adopt the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. ... Under Illinois law, the general limitations period for personal injury claims is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Village of Plainfield · filed 2013-07-30

Illinois has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. Thus, Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 false-arrest claims brought in Illinois.

Rosado v. Gonzalez · filed 2016-08-10

The statute of limitations on Rosa-do’s claims is governed by Illinois’s personal-injury statute of limitations, which is two years. ... Because he did not file his claim until April 28, 2015, he was out of time.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Liberty v. City of Chicago · filed 2017-06-27

The appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 cases filed in Illinois is two years, as set forth in Illinois’ personal injury statute, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. ... Here, it is undisputed that Liberty’s claims began to accrue on June 16, 2013, and that the limitations period expired on June 16, 2015, eight days before she moved for leave to file the amended complaint.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Brown v. Dart · filed 2017-12-05

Under Illinois law, a plaintiff has two years to bring a § 1983 claim. 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Gekas v. Vasiliades, 814 F.3d 890, 894 (7th Cir. 2016). ... Thus, Brown’s claim against the sheriff and the county accrued—and the two-year statute of limitations began to run—on December 16, 2013. Brown’s petition, filed two weeks beyond the statute of limitations, was untimely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year personal injury limitations period governs § 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims filed in Illinois.

Jones v. John Doe - Prosecution Office · filed 2017-12-18

Jones’ § 1983 claim is governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, in this case, two years. Henderson v. Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 2001); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. ... Here, Jones was arraigned on September 26, 2012, meaning the statute of limitations on his false arrest and false imprisonment claim expired at the latest on September 26, 2014.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 personal injury claims arising in Illinois.

Vergara v. Dal Ponte · filed 2018-01-31

Therefore, Illinois’s two-year ... statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits applies here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Cole v. Lashbrook · filed 2018-02-22

The limitations period for a claim pursuant to § 1983, drawn from Illinois’ personal injury law, Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 240–41, 249–50 (1989) (citation omitted), requires a plaintiff to bring suit within two years of the claim’s accrual. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 396 (2007); 735 ILCS 5/13–202; Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007). ... Plaintiff thus brought his claims challenging his arrest years past the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, claims challenging plaintiff’s arrest are untimely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in Illinois.

Casimir v. City Of Chicago · filed 2018-03-23

The two-year limitations clock started counting down when Counts III and VI accrued on July 22, 2014, but the accrual date of Count VIII cannot be determined on the TAC’s face.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Cole v. Lemke · filed 2018-04-24

Therefore, Plaintiff had until August 8, 2016 to bring any Section 1983 claims related to the events described in his grievance against Defendant Ononiwu. Plaintiff failed to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Bertha v. Kane County State's Attorney's Office · filed 2018-08-27

The statute of limitations for a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim in Illinois is two years. ... Bertha filed his original Complaint on May 5, 2016, and so any claims related to conduct occurring prior to May 5, 2014 are barred, including his allegations related to hearings occurring in April 2014.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 personal injury claims in Illinois.

Moore v. Chicago Police Dept. · filed 2018-08-28

“In Illinois, the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is two years.” Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13–202). As noted, Plaintiff did not name Cuomo and Manzo until the SAC, which he filed in June 2015, more than two years ... after the November 30, 2012 tasing incident. Therefore, unless the SAC relates back to the original complaint (which was timely filed before November 30, 2014), or the limitations period was tolled, the claims against Defendants Cuomo and Manzo are untimely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Smith v. Chicago · filed 2019-01-03

Because § 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations, the court looks to the law of the state where the injury occurs to determine the appropriate limitations period. In Illinois, the limitations period is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Vaughn v. Chapman · filed 2016-10-13

His claims arise from the August 2013 traffic stop and his arrest, and he did not bring this case until September 28, 2015, more than two years later. Those claims accrued at the time of the stop, see Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007), and so they are barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under § 1983 arising in Illinois. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Rosado v. Gonzalez, 832 F.3d 714, 715-716 (7th Cir. 2016).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising from injuries in Illinois.

Carter v. City Of Chicago · filed 2018-04-10

Because § 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations, the court looks to the law of the state where the injury occurs to determine the appropriate limitations period. In Illinois, the limitations period is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 16, 2017, meaning that his claim in untimely if it accrued before October 16, 2015.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Reynolds v. Village of Evergreen Park · filed 2018-08-02

Although the issue in Shorters was seemingly unresolved decades ago, it is now well settled that section 1983 claims arising in Illinois are subject to its two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Spencer v. Village Of Arlington Heights · filed 2019-03-01

The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois is two years. ... Those claims are time-barred because Spencer did not bring them until over two years after they accrued.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Simpson v. City of Chicago · filed 2019-08-12

Illinois’ statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which is two years, governs the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1998); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202, though federal law determines when the claim accrues, Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 166 L. Ed. 2d 973 (2007).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in Illinois.

Brown v. City Of Chicago · filed 2019-09-26

The applicable limitations period for § 1983 actions in Illinois is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Clark v. Harrington · filed 2020-01-02

In Illinois, this time period is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. ... Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation is not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Luera v. Powell · filed 2020-02-04

In Illinois, this time period is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. ... Plaintiff’s claims in this suit are barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Joyner v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2020-09-11

In Illinois, where the events in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred, that period is two years. See Woods v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Svcs., 710 F.3d 762, 765-766 (7th Cir. 2013); 735 ILCS § 5/13- 202. ... As such, Plaintiff's claim accrued as to Defendant David in September 2017, and the statute of limitation lapsed approximately one year and four months before Plaintiff filed suit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides the two-year limitations period applied to § 1983 personal injury claims arising in Illinois.

Green v. Pfister · filed 2019-07-15

Green’s § 1983 claim is thus “subject to the two-year statute of limitations that Illinois provides for personal injury actions, 735 ILCS 5/13–202.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising from personal injuries in Illinois.

Sroga v. Wasielewski · filed 2019-07-29

Sroga’s § 1983 claims are each governed by Illinois’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury torts. ... 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Illinois’s two-year personal injury limitations period applies to Title VI claims filed in Illinois.

Monroe v. Columbia College Chicago · filed 2020-03-30

The Court holds that Illinois’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies to claims under Title VI.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Illinois’s two-year personal injury limitations period applies to § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Olympian Group, LLC v. Blevins · filed 2020-09-30

In Illinois, that period is two years, so the limitations period for Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims is also two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising from personal injuries in Illinois.

Thomas v. Dart · filed 2020-12-28

Thomas’s other arguments fail to persuade. He argues that the relevant statute of limitations should be drawn not from Illinois’s personal injury statute, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, but from its medical malpractice statute, 735 ILCS 5/13-212. Doc. 80 at 3. Binding circuit precedent forecloses that argument.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Dukes v. Cook County · filed 2021-03-08

Courts look to the personal injury laws of the state where the injury occurred to determine the statute of limitations in a section 1983 case; in Illinois, it is two years. See 735 ILCS 5/13–202. ... Without any input from Defendants on how either of these doctrines apply, the Court must deny their motion to dismiss the Complaint on statute of limitations grounds.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising from injuries in Illinois.

Hudson v. Foxx · filed 2021-03-31

In the present case, the injury occurred in Illinois, so the statute of limitations is two years. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 deliberate indifference claims arising in Illinois.

Lee v. Smith · filed 2021-04-28

As a result, the statute of limitations would have expired two years after the alleged January 28, 2017 actions by Defendant Kalern and the May 14, 2018 actions by Defendant Smith.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in Illinois.

Laslie v. Cicero · filed 2021-05-10

In Illinois, the limitations period is two years. Woods v. Illinois Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 710 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[T]his court has consistently held that the limitations period applicable to § 1983 actions brought in Illinois is the two-year period for general personal injury actions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/13-202.”).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period that federal courts in Illinois borrow for § 1983 claims.

Jordan v. City Of Chicago · filed 2021-05-17

Federal courts in Illinois borrow the state’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-202) (other citation omitted). ... Because Jordan filed his complaint within two years of that date, his Fourth Amendment pretrial detention claim is timely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides the two-year Illinois personal-injury limitations period that applies to § 1983 claims.

Harris v. Doe · filed 2021-07-26

“A § 1983 claim borrows the statute of limitations for analogous personal-injury claims in the forum state; in Illinois that period is two years.” Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir. 2019); 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Soto v. City Of Chicago · filed 2020-10-28

In Illinois, § 1983 claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13–202; Liberty v. City of Chicago, 860 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 2017).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

The two-year limitations period applies to § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Cooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-28

In Illinois, where the events in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred, that period is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Illinois § 1983 claims; filing the complaint within that period makes the claim timely even before service.

Bibbs v. Dart · filed 2020-11-09

“The timeliness of an action based on federal-question jurisdiction turns on the date the action was commenced in accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Farley, 788 F.3d at 684; see also 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (section § 1983 claims “shall be commenced within 2 years next after the cause of action accrued”) (emphasis added). ... Filing the initial complaint within the limitations period, even absent service, was sufficient to render Bibbs’s § 1983 claim against Shebel timely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 personal injury claims brought in Illinois.

Ibanez-Vazquez v. Dart · filed 2021-02-18

Plaintiff’s constitutional claim thus follows Illinois’ two-year limitations period for typical personal injury claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for section 1983 claims brought in Illinois; a complaint that lacks the dates needed to assess a continuing violation does not establish a limitations defense at the pleading stage.

Williams v. Chicago Public Schools · filed 2021-05-21

The statute of limitations "applicable to all [section] 1983 claims brought in Illinois is two years, as provided in 735 ILCS 5/13–202." ... The Court concludes that it is inappropriate to adjudicate the defendants' limitations defense at this juncture.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which applies to Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Green v. Meeks · filed 2021-06-29

Illinois has a two year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Thus, the applicable statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Hall v. Sood · filed 2021-06-30

Further, the statute of limitations (which we borrow from state law in § 1983 cases, see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985)) is two years, 735 ILCS 5/13-202, and Hall makes no legal argument why claims about conduct before 2015 are not barred in this 2017 lawsuit, so we do not discuss them.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year period for filing a personal injury action ends on the second anniversary of accrual, even when a leap year intervenes.

Mascari v. Divisions, Inc. · filed 2021-11-02

The text of the statute reads “2 years,” not two blocks of 365 days. The deadline to file this action was two years after the date of accrual, regardless of whether any leap year fell within that period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Walker v. Butler · filed 2022-03-28

In Illinois, where the events in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred, that period is two years. See Woods v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Svcs., 710 F.3d 762, 765-766 (7th Cir. 2013); 735 ILCS § 5/13-202. ... Even allowing Plaintiff a generous amount of time to exhaust administrative remedies, his September 2020 amended complaint was outside of Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations application to Section 1983 cases.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Personal injury actions are subject to a two-year limitations period.

Fleming v. Amtrak Transportation Service · filed 2022-07-20

Illinois’ statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Illinois; the period may be tolled while a prisoner’s complaint awaits screening.

Randle v. Barnes · filed 2022-10-27

The Court therefore will toll the statute of limitations for the 65 days that his original complaint was pending screening. Giving Plaintiff the benefit of that tolling, Plaintiff was obligated to file suit against Lt. Simmons by October 4, 2021.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Oliva v. City of Chicago · filed 2023-03-24

In Illinois, where Plaintiff was arrested and detained, the “statute of limitations for personal-injury actions is two years from when the cause of action accrued.” Id. (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-202). ... Because it accrued over two years before Plaintiff filed suit on November 9, 2021, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim is therefore time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Israel v. The City of Chicago · filed 2023-03-28

Federal courts look to state law to determine the length of the limitations period for Section 1983 claims. Under Illinois law, this period is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. ... The respective limitations periods expired two years later, over a decade before Plaintiff filed suit. Therefore, these claims are time barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which also governs § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Ericson v. Woloszyk · filed 2023-03-31

A two-year statute of limitations applies to personal-injury actions in Illinois under 735 ILCS 5/13–202, so “§ 1983 claims in Illinois are also governed by a two-year limitations period.” Id.; Booker v. Ward, 94 F.3d 1052, 1056 (7th Cir. 1996); Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 461–62 (7th Cir. 1998); Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2008).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for a § 1983 equal protection claim arising from an arrest.

Coleman v. City of Galesburg · filed 2022-01-27

It is well-established that a two-year statute of limitations applies to that claim. ... see also 735 ILCS § 5/13–202 (setting forth the statute of limitations).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including Section 1983 claims filed in Illinois federal courts.

Curry v. Rambo · filed 2023-04-05

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Thus, a Section 1983 claim in a United States District Court in Illinois must be filed within two years of the accrual of the claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for Illinois personal injury actions, including § 1983 claims arising in Illinois; the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process.

Moore v. IDOC · filed 2023-08-01

The statute of limitations in Illinois for personal injury lawsuits is two years. 735 ILCS § 5/13-202; see also Delgado-Brunet, 93 F.3d at 342. ... That is simply not the case here and Plaintiff has done more than enough to plausibly allege tolling due to the administrative review process, such that this action is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which also applies to Section 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Smith v. Jeffreys · filed 2023-10-24

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Thus, a Section 1983 claim must be filed within two years of the accrual of the claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Gatewood v. Varga · filed 2023-12-29

Because Mr. Gatewood’s claim against Ms. O’Brien is under § 1983, it is subject to the two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions under Illinois law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Illinois; the period may be tolled while an inmate exhausts administrative remedies.

Robinson v. Childes · filed 2024-04-04

In Illinois, where the events in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred, that period is two years. See Woods v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Svcs., 710 F.3d 762, 765-766 (7th Cir. 2013); 735 ILCS § 5/13-202. Illinois recognizes equitable tolling of the two-year period for an inmate to pursue administrative exhaustion of a claim at the institutional level. ... Plaintiff did not file the present lawsuit until April of 2024, four years after his final attempts at exhaustion at the prison level. ... Against this backdrop, the court does not see any basis that would support any form of tolling.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for section 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Herbst v. City Of Chicago · filed 2024-09-16

The statute of limitations "applicable to all [section] 1983 claims brought in Illinois is two years, as provided in 735 ILCS 5/13–202." ... Accordingly, Herbst's claim is barred by the statute of limitations because he filed the present lawsuit on February 28, 2024, over three years after the deadline.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Illinois’s two-year personal injury limitations period applies to § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Williams v. Peoria Human Service Center · filed 2023-04-12

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two years. Liberty v. City of Chi., 860 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Rosado v. Gonzalez, 832 F.3d 714, 716 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the appropriate statute of limitations is set forth by Illinois’s personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years according to 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13–202)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for section 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Hudgins v. The David Lynch Foundation · filed 2023-06-30

The statute of limitations "applicable to all [section] 1983 claims brought in Illinois is two years, as provided in 735 ILCS 5/13–202." Woods v. Ill. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 710 F.3d 762, 768 (7th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original). ... The two-year limitations period for Gibson's section 1983 claim therefore ended on June 28, 2021 at the latest.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period that applies to section 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Green v. Board Of Education City Of Chicago · filed 2023-06-30

The two-year limitations period for Gibson's section 1983 claim therefore ended on June 28, 2021 at the latest. Gibson did not file her suit until February 2023.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for Bivens and § 1983 claims arising from injuries in Illinois.

Mosley v. Blackburn · filed 2023-09-20

Thus, a 2-year statute of limitation applies to his claims. ... Thus, under Illinois law, Plaintiff had until August 4, 2022 to file suit, but did not sign the Complaint until August 12, 2022, and did not file it until September 6, 2022.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Illinois.

Hablutzel v. Fayette County IL · filed 2023-12-14

Section 1983 claims are subject to the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims in Illinois. See Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 2013); 735 ILCS § 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Latin v. Jeffreys · filed 2024-03-19

Illinois has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Thus, the applicable statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims arising in Illinois is two years. ... Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not timely file his suit within the two-year statute of limitations, his claims and this entire case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202’s two-year limitations period applies to Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims brought under § 1983.

Delarosa v. Village of Romeoville · filed 2024-04-11

The plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims are governed by Illinois’ statute of limitations for personal injury claims. See Neita v. City of Chi., 830 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 2016). Under Illinois law, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years from when the cause of action accrued. Id. (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-202).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Dahl v. Hughes · filed 2024-07-08

As to any claims concerning Plaintiff’s alleged prolonged incarceration from 2017-2021, the statute of limitations for claims brought under § 1983 is two years in Illinois. See Kalimara v. Ill. Dept. of Corrections, 879 F.2d 276, 277 (7th Cir. 1989); Woods v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Svcs., 710 F.3d 762, 765-766 (7th Cir. 2013); 735 ILCS § 5/13-202. ... Here, it is obvious that any claim concerning incarceration that ended in 2021 is now beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, any claim about Plaintiff’s past prolonged incarceration is dismissed as time barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which federal courts apply to § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Loy v. Donathan · filed 2024-08-01

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Thus, a § 1983 claim must be filed within two years of the accrual of the claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

McKinley v. Gomez · filed 2024-08-26

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for personal-injury actions is two years. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202. So, McKinley should have filed his claim against Wexford by January 18, 2024. He did not name Wexford as a defendant until April 4, 2024.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Martin v. Greenwood · filed 2024-12-19

As explained above, a two-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims. Herrera, 8 F.4th at 495 n.2; 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Even liberally construed, Martin’s most recent allegations about Stvan’s conduct relate to her testimony at his trial in 2019, so the claim is time barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to § 1983 claims arising in Illinois.

Dorsey v. Chicago Police Department · filed 2025-01-28

“Claims under § 1983 borrow the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the state in which the cause of action arose,” Cielak v. Nicolet Union High Sch. Dist., 112 F.4th 472, 477 (7th Cir. 2024)—in Illinois, two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Wilder v. Rivera · filed 2025-03-21

Accordingly, “the limitations period applicable to all § 1983 claims brought in Illinois is two years, as provided in 735 ILCS 5/13–202.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for a § 1983 false arrest claim.

Corder v. Sebastian · filed 2025-03-28

Section 1983 borrows the statute of limitations from state law—here, that is two years. Hall v. Sood, 860 F. App’x 440, 442 n.1 (7th Cir. 2021); 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Therefore, if Corder chose to re-file his complaint, he would have been subject to a two-year statute of limitations and have until September 22, 2025, to file his claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which federal courts borrow for § 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Robinson v. City of Rock Island, Illinois · filed 2025-07-29

The ICRA claims are indeed subject to a two-year statute of limitations, 740 ILCS 23/5(b), as are the § 1983 claims because federal courts borrow a statute of limitations from the applicable state’s personal injury laws, which in this case would be Illinois’s two-year statute of limitations, see, e.g., Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that federal courts look to a state’s personal injury laws to determine the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a))); 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (setting a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions in Illinois, which applies to § 1983 claims arising there.

Kimberly · filed 2025-11-26

In Illinois—where plaintiff alleges that his injury occurred—the “statute of limitations for personal-injury actions is two years from when the cause of action accrued.” Id. (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-202). ... Plaintiff therefore needed to bring his lawsuit over this incident no later than September 15, 2023—two years later.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising from injuries in Illinois.

Jonathon D. Carver v. Christine Burns-Hines, Bennie Vick, and Christopher Ray · filed 2026-01-07

Plaintiff’s injuries occurred in Illinois, which has a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims like those alleged in the Complaint.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 5/13-202 supplies the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois.

Maxwell v. John Does et al. · filed 2026-03-19

However, Plaintiff waited over two years to renew his claim, and thus it is barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 13-202 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which federal courts apply to Section 1983 claims brought in Illinois.

Haywood · filed 2026-04-30

In Illinois, the relevant statute of limitations is two years. Id.; 735 ILCS 5/13-202. ... Absent further factual and legal development, the Court cannot conclude the statute of limitations defense bars Haywood’s claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Notes 1–150 of 488, oldest cases first.

163 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

Moore v. Mahone, the court mentions the two-year period while describing what might happen if the district judge later dismisses the excessive-force claim. opinion →
Glover v. Merck & Co., Inc., an unadopted magistrate recommendation compared Illinois and Minnesota limitations periods before recommending that Minnesota law apply. opinion →
Basham v. Hunt, the court cites the section in a footnote to describe actions covered by the minor-plaintiff tolling provision, then decides the case under that other provision. opinion →
Boggs v. Adams, the court cites the section as background and decides the claim under the separate childhood sexual abuse statute, section 13-202.2. opinion →
Slezak v. Lisle Center, Inc., the court cites section 13-202 for the two-year personal-injury deadline but decides whether the amended complaint relates back under section 2-616(d). opinion →
Doherty v. Cummins-Allison Corp., the court notes the undisputed two-year limitations period and decides which amendments relate back under section 2 — 616(b). opinion →
Dell v. Board Of Education, the court lists the section among possible limitations periods for an IDEA claim without deciding a rule under the section itself. opinion →
Dell ex rel. Dell v. Board of Education, the court lists the section among possible state limitations periods to borrow for an IDEA claim. opinion →
Blacke v. Industrial Commission, the court mentions section 13-202’s two-year limit but expressly declines to decide whether it applies to petitions for penalties under the Workers’ Compensation Act. opinion →
Boggs v. Adams, the court mentions § 5/13-202 as background to its decision about the statute of repose in § 5/13-202.2. opinion →
Slaughter v. Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District, the court cites the section as the general two-year period the plaintiff urged, then applies the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year period to her claim. opinion →
Steinberg v. Dunseth, the court notes the two-year limitations period while deciding whether the claims survive under the refiling and relation-back provisions. opinion →
O'ROURKE v. Access Health, Inc., the court mentions the section as a possible limitations period but expressly declines to decide whether it applies. opinion →
Bertolis v. Community Unit School District No. 7, the court uses section 13-202 to identify the injury covered by section 13-211, then holds that section 13-211 governs the minor plaintiff's filing deadline. opinion →
Dancor International, Ltd. v. Friedman, Goldberg & Mintz, the court mentions section 13-202 only while describing another case, then applies the accounting malpractice limitations period to Dancor’s claim. opinion →
Racich v. Anderson, the court applied section 8 — 101’s one-year period and discussed section 13 — 202 only as the plaintiff’s proposed alternative. opinion →
Klebe v. Patel, the court treats the two-year limitations period as undisputed and decides whether section 2 — 616(e) saves the amended complaint. opinion →
Sampson v. Federal Republic of Germany, the court lists the section as a possible limitations period but does not apply it to decide Sampson’s claims. opinion →
Meh v. Lh, the court mentions section 13-202 only to note that the plaintiffs did not challenge the dismissal of their claims against their mother. opinion →
Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., the court cites the section to explain when the filing period would expire, while deciding whether the insurer had notice of the lawsuit. opinion →
Leathem v. Von Volkmar (In Re Von Volkmar), the court used § 5/13-202 to explain why Illinois limitations categories did not control its decision under the federal bankruptcy statute. opinion →
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Modified on Denial of Rehearing - June 11, 1998, the court cites the section while recounting Creative’s argument, then applies the UCC’s four-year period to the warranty claim. opinion →
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., the court recounts Creative's argument based on the two-year personal injury period and applies the UCC's four-year period to the warranty claim. opinion →
Davis v. Toshiba Machine Co., the court mentions section 13-202 only while recounting a party’s argument in Golla. opinion →
Harris v. Chicago Transit Authority, the court cites section 13-202 to identify the personal injury period incorporated by section 13-211, then decides that section 13-211 governs the minor’s claim. opinion →
Siebert v. Bleichman, the court cites section 13-202 for the two-year limitations period and decides whether the amended complaint relates back under section 2-616(d). opinion →
Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, Inc., the court mentions section 13-202 only to distinguish an earlier limitations ruling from the ordinance issue it decides here. opinion →
Addie M. Willis, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Bobby Willis, Deceased v. Caterpillar Incorporated, the court cites the section while describing Caterpillar’s motion, then decides issues of review and transfer without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Hobert v. Covenant Children's Home, the court describes section 13 — 202 as the general two-year limitations period while deciding whether section 13 — 202.2 applies to claims against an alleged abuser’s employer. opinion →
KingVision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Boom Town Saloon, Inc., the court considered Section 5/13-202 as a possible limitations period for Cable Act claims but applied the Copyright Act’s three-year period. opinion →
Rice v. Ford Motor Co., the court cites the section to identify when the personal injury limitations period expired while deciding how Rule 103(b) measures diligence in obtaining service. opinion →
In Re Petition for Detachment of Land, the court mentions the section as an analogy when upholding a 24-month window for hospital district detachment. opinion →
In re Petition for the Detachment of Land from the Morrison Community Hospital Hospital District, the court cites the two-year personal injury limitation only as a comparison when upholding the time limit for filing a hospital district detachment petition. opinion →
Adams v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, the court applied Illinois’ two-year personal injury period to pre-1991 § 1981 claims while deciding the scope of the federal limitations statute. opinion →
Miller v. Ford Motor Co., the court addressed the two-year limitations period only on the condition that the complaint’s filing date was uncontested. opinion →
McKinnon v. Thompson, the court cites section 13-202 to explain why the minor’s claim falls under section 13-211, then decides when the applicable limitations period begins. opinion →
Redwood v. Lierman, the court reports the trial court's rejection of a limitations defense but does not decide the issue itself. opinion →
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Menards, Inc., the court cites section 13-202 as the personal injury limitations period identified in an earlier case while deciding the period for property damage actions. opinion →
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Menards, Inc., the court cites section 13 — 202 as the personal-injury limitations period while deciding which period governs a property-damage claim. opinion →
Campos v. Campos, the court cites section 13-202 while recounting Marcelino’s limitations defense and decides the timeliness dispute under other provisions. opinion →
Hileman, Susan C. v. Maze, Louis, the court cites the section for Illinois’s two-year personal-injury period, then decides under federal law when the § 1983 claim accrued. opinion →
Nierman v. Hyatt Corp., the court mentions Illinois’s limitations period but decides that Texas’s statute applies to the claims. opinion →
Wilk v. Wilmorite, Inc., the court cites the section to identify the limitations period while deciding whether the amended complaint relates back under section 2 — 616(d). opinion →
Parker v. Chester Mental Health Center, the court cites the section while recounting the district court’s limitations observation, then resolves the appeal on other grounds. opinion →
Williams v. John Lampe and Village of Cahokia Police Department, the court cites the section as background for the limitations period applicable to § 1983 claims while deciding waiver and relation back under other rules. opinion →
Tagliere, Lucille v. Harrah's IL Corp, the court cites the section to explain the consequences of its admiralty jurisdiction ruling for the plaintiff’s filing deadline. opinion →
Tagliere v. Harrah's Illinois Corporation, the court cites the section to explain the potential effect of its admiralty jurisdiction ruling on the plaintiff’s ability to sue. opinion →
Smith v. Boudreau, the court recounts the City’s argument that the section supplies a two-year limitations period but does not decide the section’s application. opinion →
Galloway v. DIOCESE OF SPRINGFIELD, the court mentions § 5/13-202 as historical background and decides whether the former repose period in § 5/13-202.2 bars the claim. opinion →
Galloway v. Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, the court cites § 5/13-202 as historical background while deciding the effect of the child sexual abuse statute of repose. opinion →
Hartzog v. Martinez, the court discusses the two-year limitations period but leaves its application unresolved, affirming the denial of leave to amend on other grounds. opinion →
Jenkins v. Village of Maywood, the court cites the section to identify the two-year limitations period while deciding when the separate one-year refiling period began. opinion →
Jenkins, Harold v. Village of Maywood, the court cites the section for the two-year limitations period while deciding when a separate one-year refiling period began. opinion →
Brucker v. Mercola, the opinion cites section 13-202 as the limitations period plaintiffs argued should govern their ordinary negligence claim. opinion →
Doe v. Diocese of Dallas, the court uses section 13-202 as a historical deadline while deciding whether the later childhood sexual abuse limitations statute applies retroactively. opinion →
Klebanowski v. Sheahan, the court cited the two-year limitations period but bypassed the limitations questions and resolved the claims on their merits. opinion →
Klebanowski, Robert v. Sheahan, Michael F., the court cited the section for its two-year limitations period but bypassed the limitations questions and affirmed on the merits. opinion →
Larkin-Gordon v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the court reports the district court’s limitations ruling and dismisses the appeal because Larkin-Gordon failed to present a sufficient argument in her opening brief. opinion →
Doe v. HINSDALE TWP. HIGH SCHOOL DIST. 86, the court mentions section 13-202 only while describing another court's ruling; it decides the applicability of section 13-202.2. opinion →
Doe v. Hinsdale Township High School District 86, the court mentions section 13 — 202 only while describing another court’s limitations ruling. opinion →
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. White, the magistrate judge cited the section in a recommendation to dismiss the parents’ emotional distress claim as untimely. opinion →
People v. Williams, the court cites another court's interpretation of the section while deciding how to construe a criminal statute. opinion →
American River Transportation Co. v. Ryan, the court cites the section to explain why dismissal of the stayed state suit would jeopardize the personal injury claim. opinion →
John Doe A. v. Diocese of Dallas, the court mentions section 13-202 only while recounting the plaintiff’s argument and applies the childhood sexual abuse limitations period instead. opinion →
VERPLOEGH v. Gagliano, the dissent cites the section for the two-year personal injury period; the majority decides whether service was reasonably diligent under Rule 103(b). opinion →
Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc., the court expressly declined to decide whether section 13-202 applies to the TCPA claims. opinion →
Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency, the court mentions the two-year personal injury period as background and applies the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year period to the claim against Bi-State. opinion →
Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, the court cites the section as the general personal injury limitations period, then applies the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year period to dismiss the complaint. opinion →
Jamison v. Urban, the court cites the section while recounting the district court’s ruling, then decides when Jamison’s federal civil rights claims accrued. opinion →
Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc., the court identified section 13-202 as a possible limitations period and remanded the question of which period applies. opinion →
Country Preferred Insurance v. Whitehead, the court cites the section as the Illinois personal injury limitations period while deciding whether an uninsured motorist policy limit violates public policy for a Wisconsin accident. opinion →
Thomas v. McElroy, the court cited the section as the source of the two-year period and decided when the Fourth Amendment claim accrued. opinion →
In re Marriage of Earlywine, the court mentions section 13-202 while recounting another case to guide its interpretation of a different statute. opinion →
Solis v. BASF Corp., the court cites the section as the basis of BASF’s limitations argument but does not resolve that argument. opinion →
Hernandez v. Pritikin, the court discussed the personal injury limitations period while deciding whether an earlier dismissal was final for res judicata. opinion →
Walker v. Ware, the court cited section 13-202 to identify when the personal injury limitations period expired and decided the effect of the sheriff’s returns under section 13-209(c). opinion →
Palacios v. Mlot, the court mentioned the limitations period while deciding whether the settlement was made in good faith under the Contribution Act. opinion →
Relf v. Shatayeva, the court cites section 13-202 as the background deadline while deciding how section 13-209 applies after the defendant’s death. opinion →
Relf v. Shatayeva, the court cites the section to identify the ordinary filing deadline while deciding how section 13-209 applies to a suit against a deceased defendant. opinion →
Campbell v. Forest Preserve District, the court cited the section as background while deciding whether § 1981 provides a remedy against state actors. opinion →
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Rockford Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., the dissent mentions section 13-202 while recounting another case; the majority decides this case under section 13-214(a). opinion →
O'Toole v. The Chicago Zoological Society, the court cites the section to confirm that the complaint was timely after deciding the zoo was outside the Tort Immunity Act's one-year limit. opinion →
Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc., the court cited the two-year period as a possible defense to the TCPA claims while assessing whether the settlement was reasonable. opinion →
Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc., the court cites the section as a possible limitations defense when assessing whether the settlement was reasonable, but leaves its applicability to the TCPA claim unresolved. opinion →
Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc., the court cites section 5/13-202 as a possible limitations defense while deciding whether settling without pursuing that defense was reasonable. opinion →
Zlatev v. Millette, the court cites section 13-202 for the two-year personal injury limitations period while deciding certified questions about relation back under section 2-616(d). opinion →
Zlatev v. Millette, the court cites the section as the applicable personal injury limitations period while deciding certified questions about relation back under section 2-616(d). opinion →
O'Toole v. The Chicago Zoological Society, the court mentions section 13-202 while recounting a party’s argument, then decides whether the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year period applies. opinion →
O'Toole v. The Chicago Zoological Society, the court mentions section 13-202 only while recounting the Society’s argument, then decides whether the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year period applies. opinion →
Copes v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, the court cites section 13-202 only while recounting the plaintiff’s argument and dismisses the suit under a different statute’s one-year limitations period. opinion →
Thomas v. City of Blue Island, the court cites the section to describe the deadline for an underlying personal injury suit, while deciding whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded a denial of access to the courts. opinion →
James v. SCR Medical Transportation, Inc., the court mentions the section’s two-year period while explaining why separate statutes give public transportation providers a one-year period. opinion →
Griffin v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the court cites the section’s two-year period while expressly declining to decide whether the claims are untimely. opinion →
John Doe No. 2 v. Boy Scouts of America, the court addresses section 13-202.2, the separate limitations provision for childhood sexual abuse claims. opinion →
Malone v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., the court mentions the section while recounting Malone’s argument and applies the federal six-month limitations period to his claims. opinion →
James v. SCR Medical Transportation, Inc., the court mentions the section as background while deciding whether James was a third-party beneficiary of a contract. opinion →
Gonzalez v. City of Waukegan, the court cites the section for Illinois’s two-year personal-injury period, then applies the federal Heck rule to decide when the Section 1983 claim accrued. opinion →
Smith v. American Heartland Insurance Company, the court used the section’s two-year period as a comparison when evaluating an insurer’s 120-day notice requirement. opinion →
Smith v. American Heartland Insurance Co., the court uses the section’s two-year period as a comparison when deciding whether an insurance policy’s 120-day notice requirement violates public policy. opinion →
Price v. Northern Illinois University, the court cites the section as the source of the general two-year period for Illinois § 1983 claims, then applies a federal four-year period to Price’s claims. opinion →
A&R Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co., the court cites the two-year personal injury deadline as background to its decision about intervention and res judicata. opinion →
A&R Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co., the court cites the section to explain the two-year deadline underlying the dispute over intervention. opinion →
A&R Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co., the court cites the two-year personal injury limitations period as background to its decision about intervention and res judicata. opinion →
Thomas v. City Of Blue Island, the court cites the section for the two-year period while deciding a judicial-access claim based on a potentially lost wrongful death action. opinion →
Hudson v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, the court cites the section as the general two-year rule but dismisses the claim under a separate one-year limit for suits against Metra. opinion →
A&R Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co., the court cites the two-year limit as background to its decision that dismissal of the employee’s untimely suit did not bar her intervention in her employer’s timely suit. opinion →
McAllister v. Freixenet USA, Inc., the court cites the section in describing the defendant’s limitations argument, then decides whether the amended complaint relates back. opinion →
Porter v. Pipefitters Association, the court cites the section as a possible two-year limitations period for the § 1981 claim, then finds a continuing violation without deciding which limitations period applies. opinion →
Tate v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., the court uses the section to supply the two-year period for Tate’s § 1983 claims and decides accrual under federal law. opinion →
Zayed v. Clark Manor Convalescent Center, Inc., the court cites section 13-202 for the baseline personal injury deadline while deciding how the disability and death provisions affect the time to sue. opinion →
Sustaita v. Ford, the court cited the section while suggesting that a claim might be time-barred, but made no definite limitations ruling. opinion →
Sease v. Darko, the court reports the officers’ reliance on the section’s two-year limit but reviews only the denial of Sease’s motion to reconsider. opinion →
Faxel v. Wilderness Hotel & Resort, Inc., the court mentions the section while recounting the defendant’s argument about transfer, without deciding whether it bars the claims. opinion →
Treadwell v. Power Solutions International, Inc., the court cited § 5/13-202 as a limitations period PSI proposed for BIPA claims but denied dismissal without deciding which period applied. opinion →
Wilkerson v. Novsek, the court cited the two-year limitations period as context for its decision that plaintiff lacked diligence in serving the complaint under Rule 103(b). opinion →
Phillips v. Metro Transit Agency, the court cites the section as a possible time bar to the false imprisonment claim and gives Phillips a chance to respond before deciding whether to dismiss it. opinion →
Kramer v. United States, the court cited the section while observing that a possible Bivens claim was likely time barred, then dismissed the claim for failure to serve. opinion →
Eberly v. Harnack, the court cites the section for the general two-year limitations period but decides the timeliness of the state-law claims under other statutes. opinion →
Santiago v. City Of Chicago, the court cited the section to explain the two-year period Santiago accepted in her proposed tow-class definition. opinion →
Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the court applied a separate savings statute to hold that the negligence claims were timely despite the two-year limitations period. opinion →
Saleh v. Pfister, the court mentions the two-year limitations period while limiting discovery under Rule 26, without deciding a limitations issue. opinion →
Brandenberg v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC, the court mentions the section while recounting Meridian’s limitations argument and leaves that argument for the District Court to decide. opinion →
Hardey v. Ruskin, the court cited the section while flagging possible timeliness issues and allowed the plaintiff to amend without deciding whether either claim was time-barred. opinion →
Murphy v. Wells, the court cites section 13-202 as the agreed two-year deadline while deciding whether the claim relates back under section 2-616(d). opinion →
Harris v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago, the court cites the section while observing that it might be too late for Harris to add the individual officers to her suit. opinion →
Regan v. BAJCO Illinois LLC, the court identifies the section as one possible limitations period for BIPA claims and stays the case pending appellate decisions on which period applies. opinion →
Smith v. City of Chicago, the court cites the section for the two-year limitations period while deciding when Smith’s federal claim accrued. opinion →
Sweports, Ltd. v. Abrams, the court mentions section 13-202 only while recounting the defendants’ limitations argument and resolves the appeal under the pleading rules. opinion →
Lumpuy v. Chicago Wax 2, LLC, the court cites the section for the undisputed two-year deadline while deciding whether the amended complaint relates back under section 2-616(d). opinion →
Swanson v. Piramal Glass-USA Inc., the court found the defense naming § 5/13-202 adequately pleaded under Rule 8(c) but did not decide whether the claim was time-barred. opinion →
People v. Ali, the court cited the limitations period as context for the defendant’s pending civil suit while deciding whether that suit was a proper subject for cross-examination. opinion →
Middleton v. Chevlin, the court notes the undisputed two-year limitations period but decides when the complaint was filed under the fee-waiver provision. opinion →
Jackson v. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah Witness, the court cites § 5/13-202 alongside other provisions as background for the plaintiff’s personal injury claim, but does not decide its two-year limitations rule. opinion →
Richards v. Vaca, the court cites section 13-202 to identify the ordinary two-year personal-injury limitations period while deciding how section 13-209 applies. opinion →
Johnson-Jordan v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., the court used the section’s undisputed two-year period while deciding whether the amended complaint related back under section 2-616(b). opinion →
Lichter v. Carroll, the court cites the section to identify the personal injury filing period while deciding whether the plaintiff properly sued a special representative under section 13-209. opinion →
Dukes v. Washburn, the court cites the section for the two-year period while deciding when the federal civil-rights claims accrued under federal law. opinion →
Sebolt v. Pindelski, the court lists the section among several state limitations statutes to support an at-most two-year deadline for a Bivens claim. opinion →
Towne v. Donnelly, the court cites the section for the parties’ agreed two-year period and decides when the federal retaliation claim accrued. opinion →
Moultrie III v. Cheesman, the court cites the two-year limitations period but does not decide whether it bars the claim. opinion →
White v. Jurassi-Paocic, the court mentions section 13-202 as the two-year period plaintiffs sought to apply, but decides that the one-year period in section 8-101(a) bars their claims. opinion →
City of East St. Louis, Illinois v. Monsanto Corporation, the court allowed defendants to continue pleading a § 13-202 limitations defense while discovery proceeded, without deciding whether the section barred the claims. opinion →
The Law Offices of Brendan R. Appel, Inc v. Georgia's Restaurant and Pancake House, Inc, the court cites section 5/13-202 in a footnote while deciding whether a false light claim survives under the Survival Act. opinion →
DuPage v. Butler, the court cites the section in describing defendants’ limitations argument, then decides whether the new claims relate back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. opinion →
Wakefield v. Christopher Police Dept., the court cited the section to flag a likely limitations problem, but dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim and allowed amendment. opinion →
Grubaugh v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, the court mentions Illinois’s two-year personal injury limit only as a comparison while applying Georgia law to the insurance claim. opinion →
Bates v. Pace Bus Co., the court cites the section as a comparison while deciding the scope of a different limitations statute. opinion →
Hancock v. Roach, the court cites the two-year limitations period as a possible obstacle to the claims, but dismisses the action for inadequate pleading. opinion →
Harris v. Renken, the court cites the section as the source of the two-year period for § 1983 claims while deciding the timeliness of state law claims under the Tort Immunity Act. opinion →
Harris v. Zuley, the court cites the section for the applicable limitations period while deciding whether other Illinois statutes permit appointment of representatives for deceased defendants. opinion →
Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. City Of Chicago, the court cites the section as the source of the borrowed two-year period for ADA and Section 504 claims, then applies a continuing-violations exception to those federal claims. opinion →
Musser v. County of Lawrence, IL, the court cites the section as background but dismisses the state-law claim under the separate one-year limit in 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a). opinion →
Wilkey v. Forest View Mobile Home Park, Inc., the court mentions the section to date the complaint’s filing but decides the appeal under Rule 103(b). opinion →
Crampton v. Little, the court mentions the general two-year period but dismisses the battery claim under the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year limit. opinion →
Allison v. Neal, the court cited the section for Illinois’s two-year limitations period but only suggested that some claims would likely be time barred if Allison had standing. opinion →
Summers v. Nyre, the court mentions section 13-202 only while distinguishing an earlier limitations decision from the accord-and-satisfaction issue before it. opinion →
Sumter, the court cites the section to identify the complaint as an Illinois personal injury claim while dismissing the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. opinion →
Patterson, the court cited the section through another decision while explaining why the plaintiff needed to specify when the alleged violations occurred. opinion →
Hernandez v. Ruiz, the court cites the two-year filing period as background while deciding whether the plaintiff diligently served the defendants. opinion →
Brown, the court tentatively observes that two alleged incidents appear untimely, then dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. opinion →
Vaughn, the court cited the section’s two-year period but did not decide whether the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. opinion →
Roberts v. Nicol, the court mentions section 5/13-202 only while recounting the defendant’s argument and decides the medical negligence deadline under section 5/13-212. opinion →
Flynn, the court cites the section while advising the plaintiff to check whether a future amended complaint would be time-barred. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-202. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace