Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.Ct. 1836, 158 L.Ed.2d 645 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1658), the ADA was enacted on July 26, 1990, see 104 Stat. 327, 327. We therefore borrow the state statute of limitations that applies to the most analogous state-law claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), partially superseded by statute as stated in Jones, 541 U.S. at 377-80,124 S.Ct. 1836. The district court concluded that Virginia’s one-year limitations period for claims under the Virginia Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (hereafter, the Virginia Disabilities Act), Va.Code Ann. § 51.5-40 et seq., should apply to the ADA claims here, and the parties do not dispute this conclusion on appeal. See Childress v. Clement, 5 F.Supp.2d -384, 388 (E.D.Va. 1998) (<HOLDING>). This court has not previously determined what 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the virginia disabilities act constitutes the most analogous state statute of limitations for claims brought under the ada (B) holding that  1522 is the most analogous limitations period for  1983 actions (C) holding that this statute was the most analogous state statute for purposes of erisa action filed in utah (D) holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada (E) holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims
Output (English): holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada