Statute of limitations
When the period of time specified in a statute of limitations passes, a claim might no longer be filed, or, if filed, may be liable to be struck out if the defense against that claim is, or includes, that the claim is time-barred as having been filed after the statutory limitations period. When a statute of limitations expires in a criminal case, the courts no longer have jurisdiction. Most crimes that have statutes of limitations are distinguished from serious crimes as these may be brought at any time.
In civil law systems, similar provisions are typically part of their civil or criminal codes and known collectively as periods of prescription. The cause of action dictates the statute of limitations, which can be reduced (or extended) to ensure a fair trial. The intention of these laws is to facilitate resolution within a "reasonable" length of time. What period of time is considered "reasonable" varies from country to country, and within countries such as the United States from state to state. Within countries and states, the statute of limitations may vary from one civil or criminal action to another. Some nations have no statute of limitations whatsoever.
Analysis of a statute of limitations also requires the examination of any associated statute of repose, tolling provisions, and exclusions.
Common law legal systems can include a statute specifying the length of time within which a claimant or prosecutor must file a case. In some civil jurisdictions (e.g., California), a case cannot begin after the period specified, and courts have no jurisdiction over cases filed after the statute of limitations has expired. In some other jurisdictions (e.g., New South Wales, Australia), a claim can be filed which may prove to have been brought outside the limitations period, but the court will retain jurisdiction in order to determine that issue, and the onus is on the defendant to plead it as part of their defence, or else the claim will not be statute barred.
Once filed, cases do not need to be resolved within the period specified in the statute of limitations.
The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:
- A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
- By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
- Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.
In Classical Athens, a five-year statute of limitations was established for all cases except homicide and the prosecution of non-constitutional laws (which had no limitation). Demosthenes wrote that these statutes of limitations were adopted to control "sycophants" (professional accusers).
The limitation period generally begins when the plaintiff's cause of action accrues, meaning the date upon which the plaintiff is first able to maintain the cause of action in court, or when the plaintiff first becomes aware of a previous injury (for example, occupational lung diseases such as asbestosis).
Statute of reposeEdit
A statute of repose limits the time within which an action may be brought based upon when a particular event occurred (such as the completion of construction of a building or the date of purchase of manufactured goods), and does not permit extensions. A statute of limitations is similar to a statute of repose, but may be extended for a variety of reasons (such as the minority of the victim).
For example, most U.S. jurisdictions have passed statutes of repose for construction defects. If a person receives an electric shock due to a wiring defect that resulted from the builder's negligence during construction of a building, the builder is potentially liable for damages if the suit is brought within the time period defined by the statute, normally starting with the date that construction is substantially completed. After the statutory time period has passed, without regard to the nature or degree of the builder's negligence or misconduct, the statute of repose presents an absolute defense to the claim.
Statutes of repose are sometimes controversial; manufacturers contend that they are necessary to avoid unfair litigation and encourage consumers to maintain their property. Alternatively, consumer advocates argue that they reduce incentives to manufacture durable products and disproportionately affect the poor, because manufacturers will have less incentive to ensure low-cost or "bargain" products are manufactured to exacting safety standards.
Tolling and the discovery ruleEdit
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (August 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Many jurisdictions suspend, or toll, the limitation period under certain circumstances—for example, if the aggrieved party (plaintiff) is a minor or has filed a bankruptcy proceeding. In those instances, the running of limitations is tolled (paused) until the condition ends. Equitable tolling may also be applied if an individual may intimidate a plaintiff into not reporting or has been promised a suspended period.
The statute of limitations may begin when the harmful event (such as fraud or injury) occurs or when it is discovered. The Supreme Court of the United States has described the "standard rule" of when the time begins as "when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action", a rule in existence since the 1830s. A "discovery rule" applies in other cases (including medical malpractice), or a similar effect may be applied through tolling. As discussed in Wolk v. Olson, the discovery rule does not apply to mass media such as newspapers and the Internet; the statute of limitations begins to run at the date of publication. In 2013 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously in Gabelli v. SEC that the discovery rule does not apply to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's investment-advisor-fraud lawsuits, since one purpose of the agency is to root out fraud.
In private civil matters, the limitations period may generally be shortened or lengthened by agreement of the parties. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the parties to a contract for sale of goods may reduce the limitations period to one year but not extend it.
Limitation periods known as laches may apply in situations of equity; a judge will not issue an injunction if the requesting party waited too long to ask for it. Such periods are subject to broad judicial discretion.
For U.S. military cases, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states that all charges except those facing court-martial on a capital charge have a five-year statute of limitations. In all UCMJ proceedings except those headed for general court-martial, if the charges are dropped there is a six-month window in which they can be reinstated. If six months have passed without reinstatement, the statute of limitations has run out.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2015)
In civil law countries, almost all lawsuits must be brought within a legally-determined period known as prescription. Under Italian and Romanian law, criminal trials must be ended within a time limit.
In criminal cases, the public prosecutor must lay charges within a time limit which varies by jurisdiction and varies based on the nature of the charge; in many jurisdictions, there is no statute of limitations for murder. Over the last decade of the 20th century, many United States jurisdictions significantly lengthened the statute of limitations for sex offenses, particularly against children, as a response to research and popular belief that a variety of causes can delay the recognition and reporting of crimes of this nature.
Common triggers for suspending the prescription include a defendant's fugitive status or the commission of a new crime. A criminal may be convicted in absentia. Prescription should not be confused with the need to prosecute within "a reasonable delay" as obligated by the European Court of Human Rights.
Laws by regionEdit
Under international law, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are usually not subject to the statute of limitations as codified in a number of multilateral treaties. States ratifying the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity agree to disallow limitations claims for these crimes. In Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes "shall not be subject to any statute of limitations".
The Limitations Act of 1958 allows 12 years for child survivors and the disabled to make a claim, with age 37 the latest at which a claim can be made. The police submitted evidence[not in citation given] to a commission, the Victorian Inquiry into Church and Institutional Child Abuse (in existence since 2012) indicating that it takes an average of 24 years for a survivor of child sexual abuse to go to the police. According to Attorney General Robert Clark, the government will remove statutes of limitations on criminal child abuse; survivors of violent crime should be given additional time, as adults, to deal with the legal system. Offenders of minors and the disabled have used the statute of limitations to avoid detection and prosecution, moving from state to state and country to country; an example presented to the Victorian Inquiry was the Christian Brothers.
An argument for abolishing statutes of limitations for civil claims by minors and people under guardianship is ensuring that abuse of vulnerable people would be acknowledged by lawyers, police, organisations and governments, with enforceable penalties for organisations which have turned a blind eye in the past. Support groups such as SNAP Australia, Care Leavers Australia Network and Broken Rites have submitted evidence to the Victoria inquiry, and the Law Institute of Victoria has advocated changes to the statute of limitations.
For crimes other than summary conviction offences, there is no statute of limitations in Canadian criminal law. For indictable (serious) offences such as major theft, murder, kidnapping or sexual assault, a defendant may be charged at any future date; in some cases, warrants have remained outstanding for more than 20 years.
In Germany, statute of limitations on crimes varies by type of crime, with the highest being 30 years for second-degree murder (Totschlag). First-degree murder, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression have no statute of limitations.
First-degree murder used to have 20 years statute of limitations, which was then extended to 30 years in 1969 and abolished altogether in 1979 in order to prevent that Nazi murderers would benefit statute of limitations but can be charged with those crimes until death.
The statute of limitations in India is defined by the Limitations Act, 1963.
The statute of limitations for criminal offences is governed by Sec. 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The statute of limitations on murder was abolished by a change in law on 1 July 2014, causing any murders committed after 1 July 1989 to have no statute of limitations. This led to the national police force implementing a new investigation group for old cases called the "Cold Case" group. The law was also changed to let cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage, human trafficking and genital mutilation to count from the day the defendant turns 18 years old. Cases where the statute of limitations has already passed can not be extended due to the constitution preventing it.
In July 2015, the National Assembly abolished a 25-year-old statute on first degree murder; it had previously been extended from 15 to 25 years in December 2007.
Unlike other European countries, the United Kingdom has no statute of limitations for serious sexual crimes.
In the United States, statutes of limitations may apply to both civil lawsuits and to criminal prosecutions. Statutes of limitations vary significantly between U.S. jurisdictions.
A civil statute of limitations applies to a non-criminal legal action, including a tort or contract case. If the statute of limitations expires before a lawsuit is filed, the defendant may raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to seek dismissal of the charge.
A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense. If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge.
Initiation of chargesEdit
The statute of limitations in a criminal case only runs until a criminal charge is filed and a warrant is issued, even if the defendant is a fugitive.
When the identity of a defendant is not known, some jurisdictions provide mechanisms to initiate charges and thus stop the statute of limitations from running. For example, some states allow an indictment of a "John Doe" defendant based upon a DNA profile derived from evidence obtained through a criminal investigation. Although rare, a grand jury can issue an indictment in absentia for high-profile crimes to get around an upcoming statute of limitations deadline. One example is the skyjacking of Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305 by D.B. Cooper in 1971. The identity of D. B. Cooper remains unknown to this day, and he was indicted under the name "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper." 
Crimes considered heinous by society have no statute of limitations. Although there is usually no statute of limitations for murder (particularly first-degree murder), judges have been known to dismiss murder charges in cold cases if they feel the delay violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial. For example, waiting many years for an alibi witness to die before commencing a murder trial would be unconstitutional. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stogner v. California ruled that the retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
|Wyoming||No||No||No statute of limitations|
U.S. jurisdictions recognize exceptions to statutes of limitation that may allow for the prosecution of a crime or civil lawsuit even after the statute of limitations would otherwise have expired.
Fraud upon the courtEdit
When an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to impair the court's impartial performance of its legal task, the act (known as fraud upon the court) is not subject to a statute of limitation. Officers of the court include lawyers, judges, referees, legal guardians, parenting-time expeditors, mediators, evaluators, administrators, special appointees and any others whose influence is part of the judicial mechanism. Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication". In Bulloch v. United States, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or function—thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person (or in criminal law if someone commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the court explained that the continuing-violations doctrine "tolls [freezes] the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident ... occurred within the limitations period." Whether the continuing-violations doctrine applies to a particular violation is subject to judicial discretion; it was ruled to apply to copyright infringement in Taylor v. Meirick (712 F.2d 1112, 1119; 7th Cir. 1983) but not in Stone v. Williams (970 F.2d 1043, 1049–50; 2d Cir. 1992).
|Wikiquote has quotations related to: Statute of limitations|
- "Statute of Limitations". California Court Judicial Branch. Public Access Records. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
- Special Historic Session. "Opening Remarks:HistoricSpecial section" (PDF). www.courts.ca.gov. Supreme Court Of California. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
- California Courts, Judicial Council. "Public Access Records". California Courts. Rewriting Amendments. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
- "Statute of Limitations by State for Civil Cases". ExpertLaw.com. ExpertLaw. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
- "State Statutes of Limitations". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
- Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition
- Allen, Danielle S. (2003). The World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens. Princeton University Press. p. 154. ISBN 0-691-09489-6.
- "Statutes of Repose for Construction" (PDF). SDVLaw.com. Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
- "MCL 600.5839". Michigan Legislature. State of Michigan. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
- "Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.15". California Legislative Information. State of California. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
- "Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c)". Online Sunshine. State of Florida. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
- Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
- Macy J. (2013). Opinion analysis: That which does not kill the SEC may make the agency stronger. SCOTUSblog.
- "La prescrizione del reato dopo la ex-Cirielli". Diritto Penale. Retrieved 5 June 2013.
- "Codul Penal, Articolul 180 – Prescripția". Retrieved 9 October 2013.
- Ridley, Yvonne. "Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia". www.foreignpolicyjournal.com. Foreign Policy Journal. Retrieved 12 October 2014.
- "Parliamentary Inquiry On The Handling Of Child Abuse By Religious And Other Non-Government Organisations" (PDF). Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Parliament of Victoria". Inquiry Into The Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organizations. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
- "Victoria ends statutory time limit on historical child sex abuse cases". www.theaustralian.com.au. Australian Associated Press. Retrieved 12 October 2014.
- "Inquiry Into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations" (PDF). Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Waller Legal response" (PDF). Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "A Submission by Care Leavers Australia Network (CLAN) to the Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations" (PDF). Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Broken Rites response" (PDF). Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Inquiry Into the Processes by Which Religious and Other Non-government Organisations Respond to the Criminal Abuse of Children by Personnel Within Their Organisations" (PDF). Parliament of Victoria. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Criminal Procedure". thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
- "Criminal Code". Section 46: Government of Canada. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
- "Limitation Periods in Canada's Provinces and Territories" (PDF). fenninsurance.com. Olga Gil Research Services. Retrieved 30 October 2008.
- "Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B". E-laws.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Stortinget fjerner foreldelsesfristen" (in Norwegian). Dagsavisen. 2014-06-16. Retrieved 2017-06-05.
- "Should Britain have a Statute of Limitations on sex crimes?". Theopinionsite.org. 2011-03-19. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- Doyle, Charles (14 November 2017). "Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 18 March 2018.
- Larson, Aaron (27 February 2018). "Time Limits for Criminal Charges: What's the Statute of Limitations". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 18 March 2018.
- Grossman, Jonathan (2014). "Speedy Trial and the Statute of Limitations" (PDF). Sixth District Appellate Program. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- Ullmer, Frank B. (2001). "Using DNA Profiles to Obtain John Doe Arrest Warrants and Indictments". Washington & Lee Law Review. 58: 1585. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- Denson, Bryan (November 24, 1996). D.B. Cooper legend lives. Oregon Live archive Retrieved March 6, 2011.
- "Sixth Amendment - Limited Protection Against Excessive Prosecutorial Delay". Northwestern University School of Law. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Retrieved 12 October 2014.
- Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2nd ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23
- Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)