Also known as: limitations of actions · limitation of action · limitation on actions · statute of limitations · statutes of limitations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory period within which a claim must be asserted or be forever barred. The period begins to run when the claim accrues and may be tolled, revived by promise, or extended by relation back under applicable procedural rules.
Leonard Lowe filed a timely complaint against Legacy Motors for breach of warranty. After the limitations period expired he amended to add a negligence count arising from the same transaction. Because the governing statute permits relation back the new count proceeds as if filed on the original date.
Lila Lin sued Lighthouse Shipping in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for cargo damage. The state limitations period had run but federal Rule 3 had not. The court applied the state period and dismissed the action because statutes of limitations are substantive under the outcome-determination test.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Latoya Lane owed Legacy Motors on a long-overdue contract. Years after the limitations period expired she wrote the company admitting the debt still existed. The acknowledgment revived the obligation and started a new limitations period.
Luis Lopez and Lola Langley ended their cohabitation. Luis sued for breach of their oral economic agreement six months later. The claim accrued on the date of breach and remained timely under the applicable statute of limitations even after termination of cohabitation.
Lamar Lewis missed the limitations deadline on his client's claim. He paid the client from personal funds without disclosing the error or advising independent counsel. The cover-up and conflict of interest constituted serious misconduct warranting discipline beyond ordinary negligence.
Lone Peak Energy's lawyer miscalculated the filing deadline and the claim was lost. The error supported a malpractice suit but did not by itself demonstrate unfitness to practice. Discipline requires a higher showing of gross misconduct than civil negligence.
Relation back occurs when the governing limitations law itself permits it and the amendment arises from the same conduct or transaction as the original pleading. The rule prevents a party from losing a claim solely because of a pleading technicality after the period has run.
Supporting sources
Yes. Statutes of limitations and tolling rules are substantive for Erie purposes. Ignoring them would produce a materially different outcome than the result in state court.
Supporting sources
A promise to pay an antecedent debt that would be enforceable except for the statute of limitations is binding and starts a new period. The promise must be voluntary and may be shown by acknowledgment or part payment.
Supporting sources
The claim accrues on breach and may be brought during cohabitation or after termination subject to the contractual limitations period. The uniform act expressly preserves the ordinary statute for such claims.
Supporting sources
No. A single negligent miscalculation may support malpractice but does not by itself warrant discipline unless it is so gross as to show unfitness. Concealment and failure to advise independent counsel elevate the conduct to sanctionable misconduct.
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…