Michael Pitts and Charles Lawson v. City of Kankakee, Illinois

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[n]ormally, the statute begins to run from the date of an injury” on a § 1983 claims
• finding no continuing violation when city erected sign stating “Slum Property” on the plaintiffs lawn
• applying the single publication rule’s logic to hold that a defamation claim arising under § 1983 was barred on statute of limitations grounds
• finding placement of an allegedly defamatory sign to be the discrete act beginning statute of limitations, despite the fact that the sign remained in place
• finding no con- tinuing violation when city erected sign stating “Slum 12 (...continued
• “The continuing violation doctrine is … best char- acterized as a doctrine governing the accrual of a claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).