green
Positive treatment
24.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Livingston (ID 60787) v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County
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 party or adds an additional party, the amendment relates back when the party (1) “received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits;” and (2) “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.”56 52 Hamilton v. City…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perdue v. Bruce
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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Espinosa v. Allen
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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Dodge City Community College
Defamation Claim Plaintiff explains the basis of his defamation claim by generally asserting that Defendants “destroyed [his] name with charges.”32 Defendants again do not challenge the factual sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations, but rather assert that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s defamation claim, or any other state-law claims that Plaintiff raises,33 because Plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement in K.S.A. § 12-105b(d).34 30 K.S.A. § 60-513(a)(4); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984) (noting that …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kirkland v. Montgomery
Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, Kan., 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984) (“Under Kan.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Unified School District 501, Topeka Public Schools
Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Franklin v. City of Kansas City
See Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 538, 540 , 109 S.Ct. 1998, 2000, 2001 , 104 L.Ed.2d 582 (1989); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984)(applying Kansas personal injury limitation).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
David L. Woodward v. Sedgwick County Jail Administrator Mitchell Paige Melissa Day Mike Hill
See Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 538, 540 (1989); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (applying Kansas personal injury limitation).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Woodward v. Sedgwick County Jail
See Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 538, 540 (1989); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984) (applying Kansas personal injury limitation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peoples v. Finney County Bd. of Com'rs
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 U.S. 1052 (1985); Wiley v. Hoang, No. 91-3073-DES, 1995 WL 89004 , at * 1 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas S. Bledsoe v. Kenneth Coggins and Marshall County District Court
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), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 (1985); see also Kan.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas S. Bledsoe v. Kenneth Coggins and Marshall County District Court
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), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 (1985); see also Kan.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dees v. Vendel
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 statute of limitations).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Debbie D'Zurella v. State of Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services Ernie Dyer and Barbara Gaines
Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (applying Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) to a § 1983 claim), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bernard Wayne Williams v. Olathe, Kansas Police Department, and William Sullivan
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 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carrington v. RCA Global Communications, Inc.
Cf. Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (applying Kansas statute of limitations for "action for injury to the rights of another” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985). 6 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reagan v. Hampton
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 Wilson).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Epp v. Gunter
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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newcomb v. Ingle
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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newcomb v. Ingle
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)
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gladys Banks v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
(2×)
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. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985); Greenfield v. District of Columbia, 623 F.Supp. 47, 48 (D.D.C.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Preuit & Mauldin Et Al. v. Jones
(2×)
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 decision in this case conflicts with three en banc decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, all of which were companion cases to the decision we affirmed in Wilson v. Garcia, supra. In Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, Kansas, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mrs. Peggy Gates v. Dr. Sam Spinks
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) (Kansas law); Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, Kansas, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (Kansas law), cert. denied, U.S. ---, 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985); and Pike v. City of Mission, Kansas, 731 F.2d 655, 658 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (Kansas law); McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367, 1370 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (Colorado law).
cited
Cited "see"
M.A.C. v. Gildner
See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (holding that Kan.
cited
Cited "see"
Caballero v. Wyandotte County Sheriff's
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.
cited
Cited "see"
Jacobs v. Lyon County Detention Center
Stat. Ann. § 60-513 (a)(4) (2005); see Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (“Under Kan.
cited
Cited "see"
Tillman v. Creighton
See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Hood v. Prisoner Health Services, Inc.
See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Bloom v. Social Security Administration
See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Henderson v. Montgomery County, Kansas, Board of County Commissioners
(2×)
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.
cited
Cited "see"
Wiley v. Hoang
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.
discussed
Cited "see"
Anthony Ray Jenkins v. Liberal Police Department, Charlie Maddock
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.
discussed
Cited "see"
Burgess v. West
See, Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613 (10th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985) (The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is two years.) Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ amended petition could not relate back to the original petition because the original petition was invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of K.S.A. 12-105b(d).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chris N. v. Burnsville, Minn.
See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613 (designating two-year statute in Kansas); Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366 (designating four-year statute in Utah); McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367 (designating three-year statute in Colorado).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kenneth Ray Meade v. Grubbs, Badge No. 128, Individually and as a Deputy Sheriff of the County of Oklahoma
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” rather than the statute for claims of "assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment"), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985); Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366, 1367 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (applying Utah statute of limitations for “[a]n action for relief not otherwise provided for by law” rather tha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jong Hee Small, Personal Representative of the Estate of Delbert Small v. The Inhabitants of the City of Belfast and James Murphy, Etc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir.1984) (proper statute is Kan.Stat.Anno. § 60-513(a)(4), “an action for the injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated,” rather than § 60-514(2), “an action for assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 2111 , 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985); Mishmash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366, 1367 (10th Cir.1984) (proper statute is Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25 (2), “an action for relief not otherwise provided by law,” rather than…
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
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.
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.