Case Citator › Andre Wallace v. City of Chicago, Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy

Andre Wallace v. City of Chicago, Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy

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

Overruled in part
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
440 F.3d 421
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
2007
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Andre Wallace v. City of Chicago was overruled in part by the Supreme Court's decision in the same case. The Seventh Circuit placed accrual of a § 1983 false-arrest claim at arrest; Wallace v. Kato instead held that the limitations period begins when detention without legal process ends, such as when the claimant is held by a magistrate.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on that corrected rule. All 32 flagged citations have been read; 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.

32 later cases cite Andre Wallace v. City of Chicago, Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy; 32 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 Andre Wallace v. City of Chicago, Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy?

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

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court replaced the Seventh Circuit's arrest-date accrual rule with accrual when detention without legal process ends, although it affirmed the judgment.

    Wallace v. Kato · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    According to the Seventh Circuit, petitioner’s § 1983 suit was time barred because his cause of action accrued at the time of his arrest, and not when his conviction was later set aside. Wallace v. Chicago, 440 F. 3d 421, 427 (2006). ... We hold that the statute of limitations upon a § 1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Andre Wallace v. City of Chicago, Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy 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