Hardin v. Straub Page 8

Hardin v. Straub general information

Media for Hardin v. Straub

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 22, 1989 in Hardin v. Straub

Douglas Ryan Mullkoff:

Congress hasn't enacted a statute of limitations system.

They can if they choose to.

Statute of limitations issues have been deferred in 1983 cases to the states.

That's Congress' decision.

Repose is a state interest, not a federal interest.

It can't be fairly characterized as one of the purposes of Section 1983.

Virtually all of the reasons urged for affirmance by Mr. Caruso would require the Court to undertake a state-by-state, case-by-case review of tolling statutes to see if the statutes conflict with the purpose of Section 1983.

We believe that this Court, through its decisions in Okura in January of 1988 and in Wilson v. Garcia, has moved in the opposite direction to simplify the rules relating to application of a statute of limitations to avoid that unnecessary litigation on collateral matters.

We urge the Court to continue this policy approach set out in Wilson and Okura and to reverse the lower courts.

Thank you.

William H. Rehnquist:

Thank you, Mr. Mullkoff.

The case is submitted.