Kenneth W. Hamilton v. The City of Overland Park, Kansas the City of Kansas City, Kansas Norman Just. & W. Bozarts, 730 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Kenneth W. Hamilton v. The City of Overland Park, Kansas the City of Kansas City, Kansas Norman Just. & W. Bozarts, 730 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Livingston (ID 60787) v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty., No. 5:23-cv-03032 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 614 Determining applicable statute of limitations for section 1983 claims36 citing casesapplying Kansas statute of limitations for "action for injury to the rights of another” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim3 citing courts put it this way · 33 listed here
  • Livingston (ID 60787) v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty., No. 5:23-cv-03032 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2024).
    Rule 15(c) “governs when an amended pleading ‘relates back’ to the date of a timely filed original pleading and is thus itself timely even though it was filed outside an applicable statute of limitations.”55 When an amendment changes the p…
  • Perdue v. Bruce, No. 6:23-cv-01196 (D. Kan. Aug. 27, 2024).
    To fill this gap, courts apply “the most analogous limitations period provided by state law.” Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, Kan., 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984).
  • Espinosa v. Allen, No. 6:23-cv-01163 (D. Kan. July 22, 2024).
    To fill this gap, courts apply “the most analogous limitations period provided by state law.” Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, Kan., 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984).
  • Lewis v. Dodge City Cmty. Coll., No. 5:22-cv-03207 (D. Kan. Mar. 1, 2024).
    (noting that the statute of limitations for bringing a section 1983 claim in Kansas is two years, as set out in K.S.A. § 60- 513(a)(4))
  • Kirkland v. Montgomery, No. 3:23-cv-05045 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 12, 2023).
    (Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) (1976), “[a]n action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated” must be brought within two years.)
  • Brown v. Unified Sch. Dist. 501, Topeka Pub. Schs., 465 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2006).published
    Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc).
  • Franklin v. City of Kansas City, 959 F. Supp. 1380 (D. Kan. 1997).published
    (applying Kansas personal injury limitation)
  • David L. Woodward v. Sedgwick Cnty. Jail Adm'r Mitchell Paige Melissa Day Mike Hill, 106 F.3d 414 (10th Cir. 1997).published 2 cites
    (applying Kansas personal injury limitation)
  • Peoples v. Finney Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 56 F.3d 78 (10th Cir. 1995).published
    See Baker v. Board of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 630 (10th Cir.1993); Johnson v. Johnson County Comm'n, 925 F.2d 1299 , 1300-01 (10th Cir.1991); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471…
  • Thomas S. Bledsoe v. Kenneth Coggins & Marshall Cnty. Dist. Court, 46 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 1995).published
    The court also found that the 1983 claim was subject to the Kansas two-year statute of limitations for bringing an action "for an injury to the rights of another," see Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984), c…
Show 23 more citing cases
  • Dees v. Vendel, 856 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Kan. 1994).published
    Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985) (all § 1983 claims are actions governed by the Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) two-year statu…
  • Debbie D'Zurella v. State of Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. Ernie Dyer & Barbara Gaines, 953 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1992).published
    (applying Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) to a § 1983 claim)
  • Bernard Wayne Williams v. Olathe, Kansas Police Dep't, & William Sullivan, 945 F.2d 412 (10th Cir. 1991).published
    See also Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675 , 679 n. 7 (10th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Cowrey v. Eastborough, 730 F.2d 1376, 1378 (10th Cir.1984); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052…
  • Carrington v. RCA Global Commc'ns, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 632 (D.N.J. 1991).published
    (applying Kansas statute of limitations for "action for injury to the rights of another” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim)
  • Reagan v. Hampton, 700 F. Supp. 850 (M.D.N.C. 1988).published
    Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.1988) (Oklahoma); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (Kansas), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985) (companion case to Wil…
  • Epp v. Gunter, 677 F. Supp. 1415 (D. Neb. 1988).published
    Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) and Rodrigues v. Village of Larchmont, 608 F.Supp. 467, 476-77 (S.D.N.Y.1985).
  • Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675 (10th Cir. 1987).published 2 cites
    Accord Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 , 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1949 , 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Hamilton v. Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985).
  • Gladys Banks v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 802 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1986).published 2 cites
    See Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366, 1370 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. -…
  • Preuit & Mauldin Et Al. v. Jones, 474 U.S. 1105 (1986).published 2 cites
    Accordingly, the court held that the 6-year statute of limitations provided by § 6-2-34(1), rather than the then 1-year statute of limitations provided by § 6-2-39(a)(5), should govern § 1983 actions in Alabama. 1 3 The Eleventh Circuit's…
  • Mrs. Peggy Gates v. Dr. Sam Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1985).published
    See Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366, 1367 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (Utah law), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985); Cowdrey v. City of Eastborough, Kansas, 730 F.2d 1376, 1378 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (…
  • M.A.C. v. Gildner, 853 F. App'x 207 (10th Cir. 2021).unpublished
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (holding that Kan.
  • Caballero v. Wyandotte Cnty. Sheriff's, No. 19-3045 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2019).unpublished
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984). 4 motion of his case pending in the Kansas Courts at all times.” Aplt.
  • Jacobs v. Lyon Cnty. Det. Ctr., 371 F. App'x 910 (10th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    Stat. Ann. § 60-513 (a)(4) (2005); see Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (“Under Kan.
  • Tillman v. Creighton, 248 F. App'x 970 (10th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984).
  • Hood v. Prisoner Health Servs., Inc., 180 F. App'x 21 (10th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984).
  • Bloom v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 72 F. App'x 733 (10th Cir. 2003).unpublished
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984).
  • Henderson v. Montgomery Cnty., Kansas, Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (D. Kan. 2002).published 2 cites
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (holding that the two-year statute of limitations in Kan.
  • Wiley v. Hoang, 82 F.3d 427 (10th Cir. 1996).unpublished
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984)(holding that the two-year statute of limitations in Kan.
  • Anthony Ray Jenkins v. Liberal Police Dep't, Charlie Maddock, 66 F.3d 338 (10th Cir. 1995).published
    See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 (1985). 4 We conclude that petitioner can make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.
  • Kenneth Ray Meade v. Grubbs, Badge No. 128, Individually & as a Deputy Sheriff of the Cnty. of Oklahoma, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988).published
    See, e.g., Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (applying Kansas statute of limitations for “[ajn action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated” rat…
  • Jong Hee Small, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Delbert Small v. The Inhabitants of the City of Belfast & James Murphy, Etc., 796 F.2d 544 (1st Cir. 1986).published 2 cites
    See, e.g., Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (proper statute is Kan.Stat.Anno.
  • Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985).published
  • Massey v. Shepack, 757 P.2d 329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).published
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenneth W. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
the CITY OF OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS; The City of Kansas City, Kansas; Norman Justice; And W. Bozarts, Defendants-Appellees
83-1593.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 30, 1984.
Published opinion
730 F.2d 613
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24017
J.R. Russell of Kansas City, Kan., for plaintiff-appellant., Kathryn Pruessner Peters, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, Kan., and Neil R. Shortlidge, First Asst. City Atty., Overland Park, Kan., for defendants-appellees.
Seth, Holloway, McWilliams, McKay, Logan, Seymour.
Cited by 60 opinions  |  Published
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by Kenneth Hamilton against the City of Overland Park, the City of Kansas City, and two Kansas City municipal employees. Hamilton alleged that he was wrongfully arrested, and sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976) for denial of his constitution[*614] al rights to liberty and due process. He also asserted pendent state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrageous conduct. The district court dismissed the action on the pleadings, concluding that the section 1983 claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that the court therefore lacked pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims. We reverse.

The arrest giving rise to Hamilton’s suit occurred on October 12, 1981. Hamilton filed his complaint on November 3, 1982, a little over one year later. In concluding that the civil rights claims were time-barred, the district court applied the one-year limitations period provided by Kan. StatAnn. § 60-514(2) (1976), which governs “[a]n action for assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment.”

Because Congress has not enacted a statute of limitations expressly applicable to section 1983 claims, the court must adopt the most analogous limitations period provided by state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1976); Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794-95, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). In Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc), decided this day, we considered the method by which an appropriate state statute is to be selected for section 1983 actions. We concluded as a matter of federal law that all section 1983 claims should be characterized as actions for injury to the rights of another. See id. at---. Under Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) (1976), “[a]n action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated” must be brought within two years. For the reasons set out in Garcia, we hold that the Kansas two-year statute is the most appropriate limitations period. Accordingly, Hamilton’s section 1983 actions are timely filed. Because the district court’s dismissal of the pendent state law claims rested on its disposition of the civil rights actions, dismissal of these claims on that ground must also be reversed.

The suit is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.