Also known as: exceptiones temporis · prescription · statute of limitations · time bar
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A defendant's plea or objection that defeats or delays an action because the applicable time limit has expired. The plea raises the statute of limitations as a bar to enforcement of an otherwise valid claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Erika Echevarria filed a federal complaint against Eclipse Manufacturing within the state limitations period. After the period expired she amended to add a new claim arising from the same transaction. The amendment relates back because the governing limitations law permits it, so the exceptio temporis does not bar the new claim.
Eric Espinoza owed Edgewater Capital on a contract that had become time-barred. He later sent a signed letter admitting the debt still existed. The acknowledgment removes the exceptio temporis and makes the promise enforceable.
Emanuel Escobar conveyed a lot in a recorded general-plan development to Elysium Media. The declaration imposed servitudes that had not been enforced for many years. The exceptio temporis does not prevent enforcement because the recorded declaration satisfies the creation requirements.
Eva Espinosa and Edgar Evers ended their cohabitation. Eva sued for breach of their agreement more than four years later. The exceptio temporis does not bar the action because the claim accrued on breach and the limitations period runs from that date.
Elijah Edwards sued Everlasting Insurance after suffering side effects from a prescription drug. The manufacturer had warned the prescribing physician years earlier. The exceptio temporis bars the failure-to-warn claim because the physician's independent judgment breaks the causal chain.
Edgewater Capital's employee took a prescription drug and later sued the manufacturer. The manufacturer had provided adequate warnings to physicians before the limitations period ran. The exceptio temporis prevents liability because the duty runs only to the learned intermediary.
The plea is unavailable when the governing limitations law itself permits the amendment to relate back to the original filing date.
Yes. A signed admission of the present existence of the antecedent debt removes the time bar and makes the promise enforceable.
No. When creation complies with the statute of frauds through a recorded declaration, the time bar does not defeat enforcement.
…people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process? Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):…