In the case of Owens, et al. v. Okure, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state's general or residual personal injury statute of limitations should be applied to claims made under Section 1983 - a federal law that allows individuals to sue for civil rights violations committed by persons acting under "color of state law". The plaintiff in this case, Charles Okure, had sued two police officers and the city of New Haven after he was allegedly beaten during an arrest in January 1981. However, his lawsuit wasn't filed until more than three years later which exceeded Connecticut’s one-year limitation period for intentional torts but fell within its three-year limit for actions on liabilities created by statute. The court ruled unanimously (9-0) in favor of Okure stating that when federal courts borrow state statutes of limitations for §1983 suits they should use those covering general personal injury cases rather than ones specific to certain types of harm such as assault or battery (intentional torts). This decision clarified how time limits apply in these kinds of lawsuits nationwide and ensured uniformity across states.

In the dissenting opinion for Owens v. Okure, Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice White, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 1983. They argued that it was not Congress' intent to create a uniform statute of limitations for all Section 1983 claims regardless of their nature or the state in which they were filed. Instead, they believed that Congress intended to apply different statutes depending on whether personal injury laws or general tort laws applied in each individual state. The dissenters felt that this approach would better respect states' rights and preserve diversity among legal systems across America while still providing adequate protection for civil rights claimants under federal law.