Wilson v. Garcia
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The other reviewed opinions applied Wilson's personal-injury limitations framework, used Owens v. Okure as a clarification, described Wilson's displacement of older circuit precedent, applied the distinct four-year rule for post-1990 federal causes under 28 U.S.C. § 1658, or used adverse language about unrelated law. Duplicate copies of Pratt v. Thornburgh were reviewed separately but produce one entry. The only text that could be retrieved for Preuit & Mauldin v. Jones was a brief certiorari-denial notice, so it supplies no treatment evidence.
4,133 later cases cite Wilson v. Garcia; 338 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Wilson v. Garcia?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court limited Wilson to prospective application and preserved the former Illinois limitations rule for this already-filed action.
Moore v. Floro · N.D. Ill. · filed
In sum, upon consideration of the Chevron Oil factors, the court holds that Wilson v. Garcia should not be applied retroactively in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court applied Wilson prospectively and held that the plaintiff's section 1983 claim was not time-barred under the former Minnesota rule.
Cook v. City of Minneapolis · D. Minn. · filed
Based upon a consideration of the Chevron factors, this court'concludes that the command of Wilson v. Garcia that § 1983 claims be characterized as personal injury actions for limitations purposes should not be applied retroactively in this action. By applying Wilson prospectively, this court holds that plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is not time barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to apply Wilson retroactively to claims filed in reliance on the Ninth Circuit's former three-year limitations rule.
Bynum v. City of Pittsburg · N.D. Cal. · filed
Because the Huson test is met, Wilson should not be applied retroactively in this case. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds are denied.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to use Wilson's shorter Illinois limitations period to bar claims filed within a reasonable transition period after Wilson.
Wegrzyn v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services · C.D. Ill. · filed
Because of the clarity with which the Beard court set out the Illinois five year limitations period as the statute of limitation for § 1983 actions in Illinois, and in light of the other factors listed above, this Court concludes, as did Judge Shadur in Shorters v. City of Chicago, that the Wilson rule should not be applied to bar the Plaintiff’s cause of action in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit gave Wilson only partial retroactive effect, allowing pre-Wilson Illinois claims the shorter of the former five-year period or two years after Wilson.
Stanley A. Anton v. Glen Lehpamer · Seventh Circuit · filed
After reviewing the Wilson decision in light of the Chevron factors, we do not believe that complete retroactive effect of that decision is appropriate in the circumstances presented here. ... Therefore, we hold that, in Illinois, a plaintiff whose section 1983 cause of action accrued before the Wilson decision, April 17, 1985, must file suit within the shorter period of either five years from the date his action accrued or two years after Wilson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court applied Wilson prospectively and denied dismissal of a claim that would have been untimely under retroactive application.
JOHN DOES 1-100 v. Ninneman · D. Minn. · filed
Because the court finds that Wilson should not, in this case, be applied retroactively, defendants’ motion is denied.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Rovenhagen held Wilson unavailable retroactively to the pre-Wilson section 1983 claim.
Rovenhagen v. Webber · Illinois Appellate Court · filed
This court declines to resolve the Wilson dilemma. Instead, we find that Wilson does not retroactively apply to the husband’s section 1983 claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ohemeng confined Wilson's personal-injury limitations rationale to prospective application in the section 1981 action.
Ohemeng v. Delaware State College · D. Del. · filed
The third and most important purpose, as expressed by the Third Circuit in Smith, was to further “the federal interests in uniformity, certainty and the minimization of unnecessary litigation.” Smith, 764 F.2d at 195, 196 (quoting Wilson v. Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1947). ... In light of these three Chevron factors and their application to the Delaware limitations period for § 1981 claims, we conclude that the Garcia ruling should be applied prospectively in this action. Therefore, the previously established three year statute of limitations in Delaware is applicable to Ohemeng’s claim. Based on this determination, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s § 1981 claim was timely filed even if the action accrued as early as April 28, 1983.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Loy applied a nonretroactivity grace rule to Wilson and preserved the pre-Wilson section 1983 claim.
Stephen H. Loy v. Robert A. Clamme · Seventh Circuit · filed
Accordingly, we find, as in Anton, an Indiana “plaintiff whose section 1983 cause of action accrued before the Wilson decision, April 17, 1985, must file suit within the shorter period of either five years from the date his action accrued or two years after Wilson.” Id. Because Loy filed suit well before the expiration of the shorter five-year limitations period, his § 1983 claim is not time-barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Nazaire declined to extend Wilson's section 1983 personal-injury characterization to section 1981 claims.
Mecene Nazaire v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. And International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers · Seventh Circuit · filed
The Union invites us to change the limitations period for filing a section 1981 claim in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). In Wilson, the Court decided that all claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to the state’s personal injury statute of limitations. ... We decline to follow the Third Circuit and, instead, adopt the reasoning of Judge Garth’s dissenting opinion in Goodman.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Pratt denied Wilson retroactive operation where clear circuit precedent made the shorter period inequitable.
Pratt v. Thornburgh · Third Circuit · filed
With respect to these two considerations, we see no basis for thinking that the denial in the present case of retroactive operation of the rule of Wilson v. Garcia will adversely affect its operation in general.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Dinger applied Loy's nonretroactivity rule and reinstated claims that the court had previously dismissed under Wilson.
Dinger v. City of New Albany · S.D. Ind. · filed
In Loy, the Court refused to apply Wilson retroactively to a plaintiff whose claim accrued before April 17, 1985, the date Wilson was decided. The Court held ... an Indiana ‘plaintiff whose section 1983 cause of action accrued before the Wilson decision, April 17, 1985, must file suit within the shorter period of either five years from the date his action accrued or two years after Wilson.’ ... Applying the holding of Loy to the facts in this case, Kenneth and Catherine Dingers’ action would be timely filed. In light of the Loy decision the Court finds that justice requires the Court to vacate its earlier judgment and reinstate plaintiffs’ claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Hapaniewski applied the nonretroactivity exception and ordered the pre-Wilson five-year limitations period used for the section 1983 claim.
Hapaniewski v. City of Chicago Heights · Illinois Appellate Court · filed
In Wilson v. Garcia (1985), 471 U.S. 261, 85 L. Ed. 2d 254, 105 S. Ct. 1938, the Supreme Court held that Federal courts must apply the most appropriate or analogous State statute of limitations for personal injury actions to all section 1983 claims. ... Therefore, it is apparent that there was clear precedent in Illinois establishing a five-year statute of limitations for civil rights actions and upon which plaintiff could reasonably rely. ... Accordingly, based on the Goodman analysis, we vacate our 1985 order and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to apply the section 13 — 205 statute of limitations (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 13 — 205) to the count asserting a civil rights violation and, further, if payment has not been made to enter judgment against the city as to the costs assessed it by the Supreme Court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wilson v. Garcia and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, 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