Also known as: statute of limitations · statutes of limitations · statute of repose · statutes of repose · SOL · statute of limitations and repose
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statutory rule that extinguishes the right to assert a claim after a designated period has elapsed. Statutes of limitation measure the period from the date the claim accrues.
Sasha Stone filed a complaint against Sentinel Security within the state limitations period. After the period expired she amended to add a new defendant. The amendment relates back because the governing limitations law permits it, allowing the new party to be brought in without facing a time bar.
Seth Shapiro sued Sapphire Holdings in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for a state-law contract claim. The defendant moved to dismiss on timeliness grounds. The court applied the state statute of limitations and its tolling rules because those rules are substantive under the outcome-determination test.
Samantha Stone owed Silverline Industries on a contract that had become unenforceable under the statute of limitations. She later sent a letter admitting the debt still existed. The acknowledgment made the promise to pay binding again despite the passage of the limitations period.
Samuel Soto and Serena Soto ended their cohabitation. Samuel then sued for breach of their agreement concerning shared property. The claim accrued on the date of breach and remained subject to the contractual statute of limitations even though the relationship had terminated.
Sylvia Santos faced a criminal charge that the legislature revived by extending the statute of limitations after it had already expired. The extension reopened the possibility of punishment for conduct that had become time-barred. The revival statute was held invalid under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Stonehaven Properties acquired paintings that had been stolen decades earlier. The original owner demanded their return years after learning of their location. The court applied the statute of limitations to the replevin claim and considered whether laches independently barred recovery.
Georgia O'Keeffe, a renowned artist, had three paintings stolen from An American Place gallery in New York in March 1946. The gallery was operated by her husband Alfred Stieglitz. The paintings subject to this action are "Seaweed" and "Cliffs," with a third painting "Fragments" also missing. O'Keeffe did not report the theft to the police or advertise the loss, though she discussed it with associates. Stieglitz died in the summer of 1946. In 1947 O'Keeffe retained Doris Bry to help settle the estate. Bry urged reporting the loss, but O'Keeffe declined. In 1972, O'Keeffe authorized Bry to report the theft to the Art Dealers Association of America, Inc., which maintains a registry of stolen paintings. In September 1975, O'Keeffe learned that the paintings were in the Andrew Crispo Gallery in New York on consignment from Bernard Danenberg Galleries. On February 11, 1976, O'Keeffe discovered that Ulrich A. Frank had sold the paintings to Barry Snyder for $35,000. She demanded their return, but Snyder refused. O'Keeffe filed her complaint for replevin in March 1976 against Snyder, who impleaded Frank as a third-party defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment to Snyder on the ground that the action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed and entered judgment for O'Keeffe. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to consider the issues. Frank traces his possession of the paintings to his father, Dr. Frank, who died in 1968, claiming to have seen them in his father's apartment as early as 1941-1943. Snyder purchased the paintings from Frank in 1975. There are factual disputes regarding the circumstances of the paintings' disappearance and acquisition.
Relation back occurs when the law supplying the applicable statute of limitations permits it. The amendment must also arise from the same conduct or occurrence set out in the original pleading. Service on the new party must occur within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).
Supporting sources
…"White House Aides" styled only as "John Does." The District Court dismissed the action under the District of Columbia's 3-year statute of limitations, Fitzgerald v. Seamans , 384 F. Supp. 688 (DC 1974), and the Court of Appeals affirmed as to all but one defendant, White House aide Alexander Butterfield, Fitzgerald v. Seamans , 180 U.…
…applied, her action would have been commenced within the period of limitations. The traditional rule to determine which of two statutes of limitations is applicable is that the
…about the elements of the 10b-5 private liability scheme: for example, whether there is a right to contribution, what the statute of limitations
…is used in the federal Securities Acts. The "maturity" of the notes, however, is a question of federal law. To regard States' statutes of limitations law as controlling the scope of the Securities Acts would be to hold that a particular instrument is a "security" under the 1934 Act in some States, but that the same instrument is not a…
Yes. Statutes of limitations and their tolling rules are substantive for Erie purposes. Ignoring them would produce a materially different outcome from the result in state court. The federal court therefore applies the state rules under the outcome-determination test.
Supporting sources
A promise to pay an antecedent debt is binding if the only bar to enforcement is the statute of limitations. The promise may be shown by a voluntary acknowledgment admitting the debt still exists. Such an acknowledgment operates as a new promise unless other facts indicate a contrary intention.
Supporting sources
The claim accrues on the date of breach. It may be commenced during cohabitation or after termination, subject to the applicable contractual statute of limitations. The agreement itself may be oral or implied in fact and is supported by contributions to the relationship.
Supporting sources
Yes. Retroactive extension of an expired limitations period alters the quantum of evidence the legislature has deemed sufficient to convict. It reopens the possibility of punishment for past conduct that had become immune from prosecution. Such a revival therefore violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Supporting sources