Also known as: statutes of limitations · statute of limitation · limitations period · SOL · limitation statute
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory rule that bars claims after a specified period of time. The period begins to run when the claim accrues under the occurrence rule or the discovery rule depending on the nature of the injury.
Samuel Soto filed a timely complaint against Sierra Solutions alleging breach of a supply contract. After the limitations period expired he sought to add a fraud count arising from the same sale. The court permitted the amendment because the governing limitations law allowed relation back to the original filing date.
Spencer Silver sued Silverline Industries in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for a state-law tort claim. The state statute of limitations had run but federal law would have tolled it. The court applied the state limitations period because disregarding it would produce a different outcome than in state court.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Simone Sanders owed Stephen Shaw money on a contract that had become unenforceable because the limitations period had expired. Sanders later wrote Shaw acknowledging the debt and promising to pay it. The acknowledgment made the promise enforceable despite the prior bar.
Sean Steele and Sierra Santos ended their cohabitation. Steele sued for breach of their agreement allocating property acquired during the relationship. The court held the claim timely because it accrued on breach and the contractual limitations period had not yet run.
The legislature enacted a statute extending the limitations period for a sex offense after the original period had already expired for the defendant. The court held the extension unconstitutional because it retroactively reopened a time-barred prosecution.
Stonehaven Properties sued Spectrum Financial in federal court on a state contract claim. The complaint was filed before the state limitations period expired but service occurred after it ran. The court looked to state tolling rules because no federal rule directly addressed the question.
The occurrence rule starts the period when the wrongful act happens. The discovery rule delays the start until the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should discover the injury. Medical malpractice and foreign-object cases commonly apply the discovery rule.
Supporting sources
The court must apply the state limitations period and its tolling rules because they are substantive under the Erie doctrine. Ignoring them would produce an outcome different from the result in state court.
Supporting sources
Yes. A voluntary acknowledgment admitting the present existence of the debt or a promise to pay it is binding even though the original obligation is unenforceable because of the statute of limitations.
Yes. Extending the limitations period after it has already expired retroactively alters the quantum of evidence deemed sufficient to convict and reopens the possibility of punishment for past conduct.
Supporting sources
…solved by reference to any traditional or common-sense substance-procedure distinction: "And so the question is not whether a statute of limitations is deemed a matter of procedure' in some sense. The question is . . . does it significantly affect the result of a litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a State that would…