TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

William Edward Harrison v. Marvin H. Wright, Metropolitan Police Department, Nashville, Tennessee

William Edward HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marvin H. WRIGHT, Metropolitan Police Department, Nashville, Tennessee, Defendant-Appellee

Harrison v. Wright, 457 F.2d 793 (6th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 3, 1972
Docket
No. 71-1555
Judges
Phillips, Celebrezze, Kent
Citations
457 F.2d 7931972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10327

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Harrison appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for damages against a Nashville policeman.

The complaint charged that the officer committed an assault and battery against Harrison while he was in police custody on January 21, 1967, in violation of his civil rights, secured to him by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). Harrison’s action was commenced February 24, 1971, but dismissed without prejudice for failure to cite a named defendant. The suit was refiled April 6, 1971, more than four years after the alleged assault and battery.

The District Court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground that Harrison’s action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided by T.C.A. § 28-304. We affirm.

In Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir. 1968) this court said: “Since the Civil Rights Act itself contains no limitation period, the courts will look to the most analogous statute of limitations of the state where the cause of action arose.” It has long been Tennessee law that the disability of imprisonment does not save the statutory bar. Bledsoe v. Stokes, 60 Tenn. 312 (1872). Harrison urges this court to adopt a rule of law for Tennessee which would toll the running of the statute of limitations while he was imprisoned. This request goes against the established law of Tennessee, which this court is bound to follow. Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1964). To like effect see Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3rd Cir. 1967).

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 11974: 11977: 21980: 31982: 21986: 41987: 11989: 51990: 21994: 11995: 119722026peak 1989 · 5

Most recent

  1. Shell v. State893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995)
  2. Ojeda Ojeda v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, Inc.137 P.R. Dec. 315 (1994) · Dissent
  3. Rutkowski v. Extradition Corp. of America904 F.2d 36 (6th Cir. 1990)
  4. Wimbley v. Norris894 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1990)
  5. Smith v. Swisher886 F.2d 330 (6th Cir. 1989)
  6. Winston Rudolph Howell v. Stephen Norris, Mike Dutton, Aileene Love876 F.2d 894 (6th Cir. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Mulligan v. Schlachter, Sergeant Ware, Lieutenant Morin, & Benjamin J. Safir, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1968) 117
Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1964) 51
Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1967) 43
Bledsoe v. Stokes, 60 Tenn. 312 (1872) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list