From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farmer v. Cook

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jan 29, 1986
782 F.2d 780 (8th Cir. 1986)

Summary

applying Mo.Ann.Stat. § 516.120 in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Bruntrager

Opinion

No. 85-1666.

Submitted January 17, 1986.

Decided January 29, 1986. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 20, 1986.

William T. Session, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Patrick Lysaught, Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Before HEANEY, ARNOLD and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.


The question presented is whether the rule of Wilson v. Garcia, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), holding that the personal-injury-action statutes of limitations of the respective states will govern the period within which cases must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is retroactive. The District Court, acting before Wilson was decided by the Supreme Court, held the present § 1983 action barred by a three-year Missouri statute of limitations. If Wilson is to be applied, the applicable statute is five years.

In Wycoff v. Menke, 773 F.2d 983 (8th Cir. 1985), we applied Wilson retroactively to bar a § 1983 action that, under the law existing when the complaint was filed, would have been timely. Our Wycoff opinion fully analyzes the factors relevant to the question of retroactivity. The most important of these factors is whether retroactivity will disappoint any reliance interest of the party against whom the new rule is being applied. Here, the effect of retroactivity is to revive an action that the defendants once reasonably believed was barred. In Wycoff, the effect of retroactivity was to defeat an action that a plaintiff had reasonably believed would not be barred. The reliance interest asserted by the defendants here is, in our judgment, weaker than that asserted by the plaintiff in Wycoff, and the reasoning of our Wycoff opinion therefore requires that Wilson be applied retroactively here, just as it was there.

The Court appreciates the services of appointed counsel for plaintiff.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for whatever further proceedings are appropriate.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Farmer v. Cook

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jan 29, 1986
782 F.2d 780 (8th Cir. 1986)

applying Mo.Ann.Stat. § 516.120 in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Bruntrager
Case details for

Farmer v. Cook

Case Details

Full title:WAYNE FARMER, APPELLANT, v. LAWRENCE L. COOK, CHIEF OF POLICE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jan 29, 1986

Citations

782 F.2d 780 (8th Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

Nitcher v. Newton County Jail

The Missouri statute of limitations for personal injuries, pled plaintiff, was § 516.120(4), RSMo 1978, which…

Chris N. v. Burnsville, Minn.

1. First Prong Analysis In the case at bar, defendants argue that application of the tripartite Chevron test…