Case Citator › Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.

Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Questioned by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
777 F.3d 838
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Treatment dates
2021
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 44 flagged citations have been read. Calvin Dibrell v. City of Knoxville questioned Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.'s rule for when a § 1983 claim accrues, citing tension with later Supreme Court decisions.
More on how this was screened

The Sixth Circuit left that issue unresolved; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

44 later cases cite Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.; 44 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 Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.?

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

Questioned

  • The Sixth Circuit questioned Johnson's discovery rule for § 1983 claim accrual in light of later Supreme Court decisions, but left the issue unresolved because the claim was untimely under either rule.

    Calvin Dibrell v. City of Knoxville, Tenn. · Sixth Circuit · filed

    Our § 1983 caselaw, by contrast, has started the accrual analysis with the competing discovery rule: that the claim accrues when the plaintiff knows of, or should have known of, that cause of action. See King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2017); Johnson, 777 F.3d at 843. Do our cases imbibing this “bad wine” warrant reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent teachings? We need not resolve this tension now because Dibrell’s claims would be untimely either way.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dorothy Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. 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