Garza v. Burnett, 321 P.3d 1104

Garza v. Burnett involves a certified Utah question about equitable tolling after an intervening change in controlling circuit law.
Garza filed a §1983 claim in 2007 alleging an unlawful search; accrual and tolling issues depend on Wallace v. Kato (2009/2007 principles).
The district court held Wallace changed accrual, so Garza’s claim accrued April 2002 and was untimely under Utah four-year limit.
Utah law controls the length of the statute of limitations; federal law governs accrual; Wallace retroactively affected accrual date.
Garza’s claim was timely under prior circuit law but retroactively untimely due to Wallace; the district court granted summary judgment.
The Tenth Circuit certified the question to Utah Supreme Court, asking whether an intervening change in controlling law merits tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an intervening change in controlling law merits tolling	Garza contends Wallace tolls the statute retroactively	Burnett argues no tolling because timely filing existed under Wallace-era law	Yes; intervening change tolls the statute when it extinguishes the action

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (clarified accrual and Heck implications for 1983 claims)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (deferred accrual; invalidated convictions bar claims)
Garza v. Burnett, 672 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2012) (intervening Wallace decision retroactively affects accrual in 10th Cir context)
Beaver County v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 2006 UT 6 (Utah 2006) (equitable tolling and discovery rule standards in Utah)
Houghton v. Dep’t of Health, 2005 UT 63 (Utah 2005) (plaintiffs not penalized for prophetic inadequacy in tolling)
In re Baby Girl T., 2012 UT 78 (Utah 2012) (statutes, agency action fairness considerations in tolling)