 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
OSBORN v. SALINAS5/19/1998
8. Thus, the very approach that Osborn seeks, is the approach the United States Supreme Court specifically ruled against.
Furthermore, this Court lacks the authority to characterize § 1983 claims. " he problem of characterization 'is ultimately a question of federal law.' " Id. at 269-70, 105 S.Ct. 1938 (citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 706, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966)). In the interest of uniformity the United States Supreme Court characterized all § 1983 claims as personal injury . " he federal interest in uniformity and the interest in having 'firmly defined, easily applied rules,' support the conclusion that Congress intended the characterization of § 1983 to be measured by federal rather than state standards." Id. at 270, 105 S.Ct. 1938 (internal citation omitted). Therefore, state courts may not recharacterize any § 1983 claim.
Because Osborn's § 1983 claim is time barred, it is not necessary to address whether something less than intentional conduct is enough to trigger the protections of the constitution.
V.
CONCLUSION
The district court's order granting summary judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the respondents.
TROUT, C.J., and JOHNSON, SILAK and WALTERS, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|