Also known as: tolling statute · tolled statute · tolled statutes · tolling · tolling agreement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory provision that interrupts the running of a statute of limitations upon the occurrence of specified events such as the defendant's absence from the state or concealment of the claim. The interruption preserves the plaintiff's ability to file suit once the tolling condition ends. In diversity cases federal courts must apply these state rules because they are outcome-determinative.
Tessa Takahashi discovered that Tundra Resources had hidden a defect in mining equipment that injured her two years earlier. State law extended the limitations period because of the concealment. The federal court in diversity applied the state tolling provision and allowed the suit to proceed rather than dismissing it as time-barred.
Theo Thomas filed his complaint against Trailblazer Airlines in federal court on the last day of the state limitations period. State law required actual service within that period to toll the statute. The court looked to state tolling rules and held the action untimely because service occurred after the period expired.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tyler Taylor sued Thunderbolt Motors in diversity after a product injury. He relied on a state tolling statute triggered by the defendant's out-of-state incorporation. The court examined whether any Federal Rule displaced the state tolling provision and concluded that state law governed the limitations question.
Tyrone Tran could not serve Tobias Thomas because Thomas had left the state shortly after the accident. State tolling law stopped the limitations clock during the absence. The federal court applied the state rule and treated the claim as timely once Thomas returned and was served.
Tabitha Taylor filed suit in federal court after the general contract period had run but within the extra time allowed by a state reliance-tolling rule. Ignoring the state tolling provision would have produced a different result than in state court. The federal court therefore applied the state tolling statute and denied the motion to dismiss.
Talon Security faced multiple individual suits after a class certification was denied. Plaintiffs argued that the prior class filing had tolled the limitations period under state law. The court applied the state tolling doctrine to determine whether the individual actions remained timely.
Yes. Statutes of limitations and the rules that toll them are substantive for Erie purposes because they decide whether a claim can proceed. Ignoring state tolling law would produce a result in federal court materially different from the result in state court.
No. Rule 3 addresses only when an action is commenced by filing and does not speak to tolling. In diversity cases the federal court must therefore apply the relevant state tolling law.
The statute tolls the limitations period while the claim is pending in federal court and for thirty days after dismissal unless state law provides a longer period.
Most tolling statutes interrupt the running of the limitations period when the defendant cannot be served because the defendant is absent from the state. The purpose is to prevent the plaintiff from losing the claim solely because the defendant has made service impossible.
…or, alternatively, Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in determining when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the state statute of limitations. I According to the allegations of the complaint, petitioner, a carpenter, was injured on August 22, 1975, in Oklahoma City, Okla., while pounding a…