Howard Walter Williams v. John J. Hollins, Assistant Attorney General for Davidson County, Tenn., and Bethel James Qualls, a Police Officer
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Willett v. Wells (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1977)
- Ojeda Ojeda v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1994)
- Windsor v. a Federal Executive Agency (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1984)
- Berndt v. Stinson (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1982)
- Campbell v. Guy (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1981)
- Berry v. Arthur (District Court, D. South Dakota 1979)
- Stephens v. Curtis (District Court, S.D. Texas 1978)
- Miller v. Smith (District Court, N.D. Texas 1977)
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (6th Cir. 1973)
- Kaltenborn v. Excel Personnel (District Court, W.D. Tennessee 1972)
- Beckum v. Tennessee Hotel (District Court, W.D. Tennessee 1971)
- Snyder v. Swann (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1970)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Howard Walter Williams, Plaintiff in the District Court, appeals from dismissal of his complaint for damages against Appellees John J. Hollins and Bethel James Qualls. His complaint charged that these persons conspired and acted together to deprive him of his civil rights, secured to him in Title 42, U.S. C.A. Section 1983. The alleged conspiracy is claimed to have brought about appellant’s trial and conviction for robbery in the year 1965. The present action was instituted on January 9, 1969. A motion for summary judgment was made by defendants on the ground that plaintiff’s action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided by Tenn. Code Anno. § 28-304.
In Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir. 1968) this Court held:
“Since the Civil Rights Act itself contains no limitation period, the courts will look to the most analogous statute of limitations where the cause of action arose.”
There we dealt with the Michigan statute which had a provision that the statute of limitations does not apply if the cause of action arose while the prospective complainant is in jail. We held, however, that since the cause of action of the plaintiff did not arise while he was in jail, the statute was not tolled. Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1964).
Tennessee has no statute tolling the statute of limitations while a prospective complainant is in jail.
*1222 In Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3rd Cir. 1967) the Court said:
“We can discern no reason why the statute should be tolled because the appellant was incarcerated.” 375 F.2d at 739.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.