Moore v. Vagnini (2017)
green
· 6 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 5 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Larson v. LaSalle County (2018)
In the Fourth Amendment context, the general rule is clear—a “claim accrues at the time of the search or seizure.” Neita v. City of Chicago, 830 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 2016); Moore v. Vagnini, 673 F. App’x 584, 585 (7th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of Section 1983 unreasonable-search claim filed more than two years after search); Liberty, 860 F.3d at 1019 (same).
affirming dismissal of Section 1983 unreasonable-search claim filed more than two years after search
Appx. 397 , 399 (7th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff’s claim was untimely because he was “present at his arrests and detention”); Moore v. Vagnini, 673 Fed.
green
Borders v. Lafayett Police Deportment The (2024)
Appx. 397 , 399 (7th Cir. 2020) (noting that the “discovery rule” did not save plaintiff’s untimely claims because he was “present at his arrests” and “[n]othing prevented him from appreciating any alleged violations that occurred”); Moore v. Vagnini, 673 Fed.
green
Grover, Christopher v. Ford Motor Company (2021)
Moore v. Vagnini, 673 Fed.
discovery takes place when a person discovers or should have discovered an 3 injury and the person responsible for it
green
Mayo v. LaSalle County (2019)
See Moore v. Vagnini, 673 Fed.
explaining that a plaintiff need not know under what legal theory he had a claim to know that he had suffered harm such that the statute of limitations in a § 1983 action was triggered