Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Statute of limitations

The statute of limitations is a statutory provision that establishes the maximum period following an event—such as an injury, offense, or breach—within which a plaintiff or prosecutor must commence legal action, after which the right to sue or prosecute is typically extinguished.^[1]^[2] These time limits vary significantly by jurisdiction, type of claim (civil or criminal), and severity of the alleged wrong, with federal criminal statutes generally imposing a five-year default for non-capital offenses unless otherwise specified.^[3] Rooted in ancient legal traditions including Roman law, the doctrine balances the pursuit of justice against practical imperatives like evidence degradation and the need for societal finality, preventing indefinite liability and incentivizing prompt resolution of disputes.^[4]^[5] In civil contexts, statutes of limitations commonly range from one to six years for torts, contracts, or property disputes, serving to protect defendants from stale claims where memories fade and witnesses become unavailable.^[1] Criminal applications similarly aim to ensure prosecutions occur while evidence remains viable, though no limitations apply to capital crimes, certain terrorism offenses, or specific sex crimes involving minors.^[3] Key mechanisms like tolling—pausing the clock during periods of defendant concealment, plaintiff incapacity (e.g., minority), or jurisdictional absence—and the discovery rule, which delays accrual until harm is reasonably discoverable, mitigate rigid application but introduce interpretive complexities.^[6] Debates persist over the doctrine's equity, particularly in cases of latent injuries or delayed reporting, where expired limitations may shield wrongdoers despite viable evidence, prompting legislative extensions or abolitions in areas like childhood sexual abuse; conversely, critics argue indefinite exposure undermines repose and burdens defendants with perpetual defense readiness.^[7]^[8] These tensions underscore the statute's role not as an absolute bar to justice but as a pragmatic constraint shaped by evidentiary realities and policy trade-offs, with courts often navigating due process challenges in enforcement.^[9]

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Scope

A statute of limitations is a law establishing the maximum duration after an injurious event or offense during which a plaintiff or prosecutor must commence legal proceedings, after which the claim becomes unenforceable in court.^[1] This temporal boundary extinguishes the right to seek remedy, barring actions regardless of the merits of the underlying grievance. The doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, typically raised by defendants to dismiss untimely suits.^[1] Its scope encompasses both civil and criminal matters, though application and durations differ markedly between them and across jurisdictions.^[1] In civil contexts, it governs claims like breach of contract, torts (e.g., personal injury or negligence), and property disputes, with periods often ranging from one to six years depending on the claim and location; for example, many U.S. states impose two- to three-year limits for personal injury actions.^[10] Criminal statutes of limitations apply to prosecutions, frequently extending longer for felonies—such as the five-year federal limit for most non-capital offenses in the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 3282—or being absent entirely for grave crimes like murder in numerous jurisdictions.^[11] In civil law systems, equivalent mechanisms are termed prescriptive periods, serving parallel functions but integrated into broader codes rather than standalone statutes.^[7] The limitations period accrues from the date the cause of action arises—typically the injury's occurrence or the offense's completion—but jurisdictions may apply the discovery rule, commencing the clock upon reasonable discovery of the harm, or tolling to suspend it during factors like a party's incapacity, minority, or evasion of service.^[1] Variations persist globally and subnationally: U.S. states maintain distinct statutes for analogous claims, while international frameworks, such as those in the European Union, harmonize certain prescriptive rules under directives like the Rome I Regulation for contractual obligations, yet defer to member-state implementations.^[7] These differences underscore the doctrine's adaptability to local evidentiary, procedural, and policy contexts, without uniform international standards.^[1]

Distinctions from Analogous Doctrines

The statute of limitations differs from a statute of repose in that the former establishes a procedural time bar on remedies that typically accrues upon the occurrence of injury or its discovery, allowing for tolling in cases such as plaintiff incapacity or fraudulent concealment, whereas the latter imposes a substantive, absolute cutoff measured from an antecedent event like product manufacture or project completion, irrespective of harm realization or tolling provisions.^[12]^[13] Statutes of repose thus extinguish the underlying right to sue after the fixed period, often applied in construction defect or products liability contexts to provide defendants repose from indefinite exposure, as seen in state laws capping claims at 10-12 years from substantial completion.^[14]^[15] In contrast to laches, an equitable defense rooted in common law chancery courts, the statute of limitations operates as a rigid statutory mandate applicable to both legal and some equitable claims, enforcing fixed deadlines without requiring proof of prejudice from delay.^[16] Laches, however, demands demonstration of unreasonable plaintiff delay that materially prejudices the defendant—such as lost evidence or changed circumstances—and is invoked discretionarily in suits for injunctive or specific performance relief where no statutory limit governs, allowing courts flexibility based on case facts rather than calendar rigidity.^[17] This distinction preserves statutory predictability for legal actions while permitting equity to address undue hardship in discretionary remedies. Prescription, primarily a civil law concept equivalent to the statute of limitations in common law systems, shares the core function of barring claims after a prescriptive period but often integrates acquisitive effects, such as conferring ownership of immovable property through continuous possession without title, unlike the purely defensive bar of limitations periods in common law jurisdictions.^[18] In common law, analogous to prescription for real property is adverse possession, which vests title in a possessor after a statutory period of open, hostile, and continuous occupation, invoking limitations principles to quiet title but requiring affirmative elements beyond mere passage of time, such as actual possession and payment of taxes in some states, to prevent stale claims while enabling land utilization.^[19]^[20] These doctrines thus extend limitations logic to affirmative rights acquisition, distinguishing them from the remedial focus of statutes of limitations.

Historical Development

Ancient and Early Common Law Origins

In ancient Greek law, time limitations barred prosecution for most offenses after five years, with murder exempted to preserve justice for grave wrongs.^[21] Roman law developed extinctive prescription, establishing fixed periods after which claims extinguished, such as 20 years for certain criminal liabilities, reflecting concerns over evidentiary fade and societal repose.^[22] ^[23] These mechanisms, rooted in usucapio for property acquisition by prolonged possession, prioritized long-term stability over indefinite liability, influencing subsequent civil systems by balancing claimant rights against the impracticality of ancient proofs.^[24] Early English common law lacked comprehensive statutes for personal actions but employed prescriptive bars for real property, where 20 years of adverse possession typically defeated recovery claims, as recognized by the 13th-century writ system.^[7] Courts dismissed suits involving lapsed memory or lost evidence under informal doctrines, emphasizing practical justice over rigid perpetuity. In equity, laches emerged as a flexible defense against unreasonable delay prejudicing defendants, originating in Chancery practices by the 15th century to mitigate stale demands where no statutory limit applied.^[25] ^[26] The Limitation Act 1623 marked the first statutory codification for in personam actions in England, imposing a six-year limit from accrual to curb fraudulent revivals and ensure timely litigation.^[27] This built on prior real property statutes like the 1540 Act (32 Hen. VIII c. 2), which set 20-year bars for certain land recoveries, formalizing common law's evidentiary realism amid growing commercial needs. These developments underscored causal priorities: decay of witnesses and records rendered delayed justice unreliable, favoring repose to prevent perpetual uncertainty.^[28]

Codification and Evolution in the Modern Era

The codification of statutes of limitations in the modern era marked a transition from fragmented common law precedents to systematic statutory frameworks, beginning in England with the Limitation Act 1623 (21 Jas. 1, c. 16), which established a six-year limitation period for most actions in tort and arising from simple contracts, as well as specific shorter periods for actions like slander (two years) and assault (one year).^[24] This act represented the first comprehensive legislative effort to impose time bars on civil claims, building on earlier penal limitations dating to 1540, and aimed to provide certainty by curtailing indefinite liability for historical wrongs.^[27] Subsequent English legislation refined these provisions, with the Real Property Limitation Act 1833 extending protections for land titles to 12 years of adverse possession, and later acts such as the Limitation Act 1939 introducing provisions for latent defects and equitable relief.^[29] In civil law jurisdictions, codification occurred through comprehensive civil codes, exemplified by the French Civil Code of 1804, which integrated extinctive prescription—analogous to statutes of limitations—into its structure under articles 2219–2281, setting a general 30-year period for personal actions that was later shortened, alongside 10- and 20-year periods for property and certain obligations.^[23] This approach treated prescription as extinguishing the substantive right rather than merely barring the remedy, influencing codes across Europe and Latin America by embedding graduated periods based on claim type, such as shorter terms for minor delicts.^[30] Reforms in the 20th century, including France's 2008 overhaul reducing the general period to five years for contractual claims, reflected adaptations to evidentiary advances and economic demands for prompt resolution.^[31] In the United States, post-independence states inherited English principles but codified limitation periods in early statutes and codes of procedure, with California's framework enacted in 1850 and consolidated in the Code of Civil Procedure by 1872, typically setting two to six years for personal injury and contract claims varying by jurisdiction.^[5] Federal criminal statutes evolved separately, with the general five-year period under 18 U.S.C. § 3282 tracing to expansions from two years in 1790, three years in 1876, and five years in 1934, excluding capital offenses and certain terrorism or sex crimes.^[32] Twentieth-century evolution across systems incorporated modifications like the discovery rule—delaying accrual until harm is known—to address concealed injuries, as in England's Latent Damage Act 1986, and extensions for fraud or incapacity, while some U.S. states abolished limits for heinous crimes like murder to prioritize accountability over repose.^[27] These changes balanced evidentiary decay with justice demands, often lengthening periods amid debates over empirical reliability of aged evidence, yet retaining core bars to prevent stale claims.^[33]

Rationales and Justifications

Evidentiary Preservation and Repose

One primary rationale for statutes of limitations is the preservation of evidentiary integrity, as prolonged delays between an alleged wrongdoing and litigation often result in the degradation or loss of critical evidence, the unavailability of witnesses due to death or relocation, and the erosion of human memory, thereby increasing the risk of inaccurate fact-finding and unjust outcomes.^[34]^[35] Courts and legislatures recognize that these evidentiary challenges make it difficult for defendants to mount effective defenses, while plaintiffs may rely on reconstructed or unreliable recollections, undermining the adversarial process's reliability.^[36] This concern is particularly acute in tort and civil rights claims, where physical evidence may deteriorate and documentary records fade, prompting jurisdictions to impose time bars to favor proceedings conducted with contemporaneous proof.^[12] The doctrine of repose complements evidentiary preservation by affording defendants a measure of finality and protection from perpetual liability, enabling individuals and entities to conduct affairs without the indefinite shadow of potential lawsuits long after an event.^[5] Under this principle, statutes of limitations serve as a public policy mechanism to establish clear endpoints for legal exposure, fostering economic predictability and discouraging the hoarding of claims for strategic advantage.^[37] For instance, in construction defect cases, repose ensures builders and designers can close projects without fear of suits decades later, reflecting a balance against open-ended obligations that could stifle innovation and investment.^[38] Together, these rationales underscore statutes of limitations as safeguards for judicial efficiency and fairness, prioritizing claims resolvable with robust evidence over those hampered by temporal decay, while granting repose to promote societal stability over unchecked plaintiff prerogatives. Empirical support for evidentiary decay includes studies showing witness accuracy declines significantly after two years, with error rates rising from under 10% to over 30% in delayed recollections of events.^[39] Critics of extensions, such as in discovery rules, argue they exacerbate these issues by allowing suits based on attenuated proofs, though proponents counter with case-specific tolling; however, core repose benefits persist across jurisdictions to avert systemic overload from revived ancient grievances.^[18]

Promotion of Vigilance and Legal Certainty

Statutes of limitations promote vigilance by incentivizing potential claimants to investigate and pursue legal remedies promptly upon accrual of a cause of action, thereby mitigating the risks of evidentiary degradation over time. This rationale underscores the principle that claimants who delay assertion of rights may forfeit them, as the fixed time bar compels diligent action to preserve access to judicial redress while evidence remains reliable and witnesses' recollections are fresh. For instance, courts have recognized that such limitations "induce prompt filing and punish negligent plaintiffs who sit on their claims," ensuring that litigation occurs under conditions most conducive to accurate fact-finding.^[40] In practice, this encouragement of timeliness serves to allocate judicial resources efficiently, prioritizing cases where fresh evidence can support robust adjudication over those hampered by lapsed opportunities for discovery or preservation of proof. Legal scholars and legislative analyses affirm that statutes of limitations are "designed to encourage diligence in the prosecution of claims," fostering a system where inaction does not indefinitely preserve litigious potential at the expense of procedural fairness.^[41]^[42] Complementing vigilance, statutes of limitations enhance legal certainty by establishing definitive endpoints beyond which defendants are insulated from liability, enabling individuals and entities to conduct affairs without perpetual apprehension of dormant claims. This finality prevents indefinite exposure to suit, allowing for orderly closure of potential disputes and reducing the administrative burdens of indefinite record-keeping or insurance provisioning. As articulated in judicial and analytical discourse, the mechanism provides "legal certainty by establishing clear time limits for initiating legal actions," which underpins economic predictability in transactions and personal planning.^[43] Such certainty is particularly salient in commercial contexts, where parties can confidently finalize agreements or dispose of assets post-expiration, free from retrospective challenges that could destabilize resolved matters. Empirical support for this rationale emerges from the observed efficiency in legal systems with strict limitations, where defendants benefit from repose analogous to that in statutes of repose, though tailored to injury accrual rather than fixed events. Critics of extensions or tolling provisions argue that diluting these bars erodes the certainty that incentivizes responsible conduct, but proponents of the core doctrine maintain that the balance favors societal stability over unbounded remedial windows.^[44]

Criticisms and Empirical Challenges

Arguments for Victim Justice and Extensions

Advocates for extending or eliminating statutes of limitations argue that rigid time bars often deny justice to victims of serious crimes, particularly sexual assaults and child abuse, where psychological trauma delays disclosure for years or decades. Trauma-induced conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) manifest in avoidance behaviors, suppressed memories, and fear of reprisal, preventing timely reporting; studies indicate that over 70% of child sexual abuse survivors delay disclosure until adulthood, with 51% first revealing abuse at age 50 or older in cases like the Boy Scouts of America scandal.^[45]^[46] These delays stem from the long-term neurological and emotional impacts of victimization, rendering traditional short limitation periods—often 2 to 7 years—incompatible with empirical understandings of victim psychology, as evidenced by low initial reporting rates where only about one-third of sexual assaults are reported at all, and even fewer lead to prosecution.^[45] Legislative reforms in response have progressively extended or removed these limits, particularly for child sexual abuse offenses, to align with victim realities and enhance accountability. As of 2025, 44 states have eliminated criminal statutes of limitations for certain child sex crimes, with Iowa becoming the 14th to do so in 2021, and states like Maryland, Maine, and Vermont removing all time caps entirely.^[47]^[48] Civil reforms, such as Maryland's 2023 Child Victims Act upheld by its Supreme Court in 2025, allow survivors to file claims without age-based restrictions, enabling pursuit of compensation from perpetrators and enabling institutions.^[49]^[50] Organizations like CHILD USA and RAINN contend that such extensions do not lower evidentiary standards—prosecutors must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—but remove arbitrary barriers, facilitating justice for late-disclosing victims and protecting communities from unprosecuted predators.^[51]^[52] Empirical rationales emphasize that extensions enable resolution of cold cases via advancements like DNA analysis, which can preserve biological evidence indefinitely in some jurisdictions, and promote public safety by identifying serial offenders whose patterns emerge over time.^[53] Post-reform surges in filings, as seen in states with lookback windows or eliminations, demonstrate increased victim access to civil redress, shifting economic burdens to responsible parties rather than taxpayers or victims themselves, though criminal conviction rates remain challenged by overall low reporting persistence.^[51] Critics of strict SOLs, including trauma-informed legal scholars, argue that failure to extend perpetuates injustice, as barred claims leave victims without recourse despite credible allegations, underscoring a causal link between limitation reforms and enhanced victim empowerment.^[54]^[45]

Risks of Indefinite Liability and Evidentiary Decay

Without time limits on liability, defendants face perpetual exposure to claims arising from past actions, which fosters economic uncertainty and discourages long-term investments in sectors such as manufacturing, construction, and product development.^[55] This indefinite liability can elevate insurance costs, as insurers must account for unbounded future risks, potentially leading to reduced innovation and higher prices for consumers, since firms pass on the elevated risk premiums.^[56] For instance, in construction, statutes of repose—absolute cutoffs regardless of injury discovery—are justified to shield builders from claims decades after project completion, preventing unpredictability that hampers industry planning and resource allocation.^[57] Empirical observations from jurisdictions temporarily waiving statutes, such as New York's one-year suspension for civil sex abuse claims in 2019, resulted in over 3,000 lawsuits, straining courts and illustrating the potential for litigation surges that burden economic productivity without time bars.^[58] Evidentiary decay compounds these issues by rendering delayed claims increasingly unreliable, as physical evidence deteriorates, documents are lost or destroyed, and key witnesses become unavailable due to death, relocation, or faded recollection.^[59] Legal doctrine recognizes that prolonged delays prejudice defendants, who bear the brunt of eroded proof, often tilting proceedings toward plaintiffs through unverifiable testimony or incomplete records.^[60] Studies and legal analyses affirm that older evidence is presumptively less reliable, increasing the risk of erroneous judgments, as human memory accuracy declines over time and contextual details fade, making fair adjudication of "stale" claims improbable.^[61] In one documented case, a 10-year litigation delay led to lost records from flooded storage and degraded materials, severely compromising the defense's ability to mount an effective trial.^[62] This evidentiary erosion not only undermines due process but also incentivizes strategic delays by claimants, further distorting causal assessments in protracted disputes.^[22]

Key Doctrines and Modifications

Tolling and Equitable Exceptions

Tolling denotes the temporary suspension of the running of a statute of limitations period, thereby extending the time available to initiate legal action without resetting the clock entirely.^[63] This mechanism arises either through statutory provisions that explicitly pause the period under defined conditions or via judicially crafted equitable doctrines applied sparingly to prevent injustice.^[64] Statutory tolling is codified in many jurisdictions; for instance, in criminal cases under federal law, the period tolls during a defendant's period of fugitivity, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3290, which halts the clock until the fugitive is present in the United States.^[65] In civil contexts, statutes often toll for the plaintiff's minority, mental incapacity, or imprisonment, suspending the period until the disability ends—for example, in California, tolling applies during a minor's infancy until reaching majority.^[66] Other statutory triggers include the defendant's concealment of wrongdoing or absence from the jurisdiction, ensuring the limitations period does not expire due to factors outside the plaintiff's control.^[67] Equitable tolling, distinct from statutory variants, is a non-statutory, court-invoked exception rooted in principles of fairness, applied only where rigid enforcement would cause undue hardship despite the claimant's reasonable diligence.^[68] Courts require two elements: the party must have pursued rights diligently, and extraordinary circumstances—such as active deception by the opposing party, severe attorney misconduct, or unavoidable external barriers—must have prevented timely filing.^[69] This doctrine does not excuse ordinary negligence or lack of awareness, maintaining a high threshold to preserve the repose function of limitations statutes.^[70] In federal civil suits, equitable tolling extends to certain non-jurisdictional deadlines, as affirmed in cases like Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1990), where the U.S. Supreme Court held it applicable to suits against the government under some statutes, balancing finality against equity.^[68] However, it does not apply to jurisdictional limits, such as those under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for class action appeals, per Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert (2019).^[71] In criminal prosecutions, equitable tolling is rarer and typically confined to habeas corpus challenges, where it may pause the one-year Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) deadline for prisoners showing diligence thwarted by extraordinary obstacles, like prison officials withholding legal materials.^[72] Statutory tolling predominates here, such as during ongoing parallel civil proceedings in some states or federal tolling for defendants evading arrest.^[73] Jurisdictions vary; for example, some states toll civil claims while criminal charges against the same defendant proceed, preventing parallel litigation from barring recovery.^[73] Overall, both tolling forms underscore a tension between evidentiary finality and access to justice, with courts scrutinizing applications to avoid undermining legislative intent for timely claims.^[74]

Discovery Rule Applications

The discovery rule postpones the commencement of the statute of limitations period until the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, both the injury and its causal connection to the defendant's conduct, addressing situations where harm is inherently latent or concealed.^[6] This doctrine applies primarily in tort claims involving delayed manifestation, such as those arising from insidious diseases or hidden defects, preventing the bar of claims before the plaintiff has a meaningful opportunity to pursue redress.^[75] In medical malpractice actions, the discovery rule frequently tolls limitations for injuries not immediately detectable, including foreign objects left in the body or misdiagnoses revealing harm years later; for instance, under New York law, the period begins upon discovery in such cases, though capped by repose statutes in many jurisdictions.^[76] Similarly, in products liability suits, accrual starts when the plaintiff knows or should know of the defect's role in the injury, as seen in asbestos exposure claims where symptoms emerge decades after exposure.^[77] Fraudulent concealment variants extend this further, delaying the clock if the defendant actively hides facts, applicable across torts but requiring proof of affirmative deception beyond mere nondisclosure.^[78] Beyond torts, the rule governs accrual in intellectual property disputes; in copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), the U.S. Supreme Court in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (2024) upheld its application, permitting recovery for all timely-filed claims regardless of infringement duration prior to discovery, rejecting a strict three-year damages cap when accrual is deferred.^[79] In contract breaches involving fiduciary duties or fraud, some states apply it upon reasonable awareness of the violation, though federal securities fraud under Gabelli v. SEC (2013) rejected it absent explicit statutory language.^[80] Applications vary jurisdictionally: most U.S. states adopt it for specific torts like medical negligence or fraud but reject broader use in simple negligence to avoid indefinite liability, with landmark adoptions including Texas's Gaddis v. Smith (1999) for malpractice discovery.^[81] In England and Wales, the Limitation Act 1980 incorporates a analogous "date of knowledge" test for personal injury claims under section 11, starting the three-year period from awareness of material facts about the damage and its imputability, though stricter than U.S. variants by excluding self-induced ignorance. This rule's invocation often hinges on fact-specific inquiries into diligence, with courts scrutinizing whether plaintiffs ignored "storm warnings" of harm.^[82]

Statute of Repose Differentiation

A statute of repose establishes an absolute outer limit on liability by barring any claim after a fixed period measured from a specific event unrelated to the plaintiff's injury, such as the completion of construction, delivery of a product, or substantial completion of an improvement to real property.^[83] ^[18] In contrast, a statute of limitations commences upon accrual of the cause of action, typically when the injury occurs or is discovered, allowing suits within that window even if the repose period has not yet expired.^[84] ^[85] This distinction means a statute of repose can extinguish a potential claim before it arises, effectively creating a cutoff independent of harm or knowledge thereof, whereas statutes of limitations are tied to the plaintiff's diligence in pursuing a known wrong.^[12] ^[86] The rationale for statutes of repose emphasizes providing defendants—often manufacturers, builders, or designers—with certainty against perpetual exposure to suit, as evidence and witnesses degrade over time regardless of fault.^[12] ^[87] Unlike statutes of limitations, which promote plaintiff vigilance and evidentiary freshness post-injury, repose statutes prioritize economic predictability, limiting indefinite liability for latent defects that may manifest decades later.^[18] ^[88] For instance, in products liability, a repose period might run from the date of sale, barring claims for injuries occurring after 10–15 years even if undiscovered earlier.^[89] Statutes of repose generally resist extensions like tolling, equitable estoppel, or the discovery rule, which commonly apply to statutes of limitations to account for concealed injuries or incapacity.^[84] ^[90] In construction defect cases, many U.S. states impose a 10-year repose from substantial completion, overriding any later accrual under limitations periods.^[86] ^[14] U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such as in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger (2014), has upheld state repose statutes against federal preemption challenges under environmental laws like CERCLA, affirming their substantive nature as limits on rights rather than mere procedural bars. This ruling distinguished repose from limitations by noting the former's independence from injury timing, reinforcing its role in foreclosing claims prospectively. Empirically, repose statutes vary by jurisdiction and defect type; for example, federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1658 sets a four-year repose for certain securities claims from public offering, while aviation parts face an 18-year limit under 49 U.S.C. § 44113 from manufacture.^[91] Critics argue this rigidity disadvantages victims of long-latency harms, but proponents cite data on reduced litigation costs and insurance premiums in repose-adopting states, though comprehensive empirical studies remain limited.^[92]

Applications in Civil and Criminal Contexts

Civil Claims and Contractual Limits

In civil claims, statutes of limitations establish deadlines for filing lawsuits arising from breaches of contract, torts, or other non-criminal wrongs, typically measured from the date of accrual—such as the breach itself or, in some cases, discovery of harm.^[7] These periods promote timely resolution while preventing indefinite liability, with durations varying by claim type and jurisdiction; for instance, breach of written contracts often carries limits of three to ten years across U.S. states, shorter for oral agreements (e.g., two years in California).^[10] ^[93] Under the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in most states, actions for breach of contracts for the sale of goods must commence within four years after the cause accrues, unless the parties explicitly agree to a shorter period in the contract.^[94] Contractual provisions shortening these statutory periods are generally permissible in commercial contexts, as they reflect bargained-for risk allocation, provided the reduction is reasonable and does not violate public policy.^[95] Courts enforce such clauses if they afford sufficient time for discovery and suit—often six months to one year in business agreements—but invalidate them if they unduly burden one party or apply to non-waivable statutory claims, such as certain employment discrimination actions under federal law.^[96] ^[97] For example, Delaware courts uphold shortenings as valid contractual choices, while recent Michigan Supreme Court rulings, such as in 2025 cases, mandate scrutiny of factors like discovery time, bargaining power, and fairness before enforcement.^[98] ^[99] Parties cannot contractually extend limitations beyond statutory maxima, as this contravenes legislative intent to ensure repose, though equitable doctrines like tolling may apply separately.^[100] In practice, such limits reduce litigation exposure for defendants, particularly in high-volume sectors like construction or sales, but require clear drafting to avoid challenges; ambiguous clauses risk judicial reformation to the statutory default.^[101] Empirical data from state charts indicate consistent application, with no uniform federal civil contract limit outside specific statutes like the Miller Act's four-year cap for public works bonds.^[102]

Criminal Prosecutions and Public Policy Exceptions

In criminal prosecutions, statutes of limitations generally impose time bars on initiating charges to promote evidentiary reliability, defendant repose, and resource allocation, with the standard federal limit in the United States set at five years for non-capital offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 3282.^[103] This period begins accruing from the offense's commission, but public policy considerations often lead to exemptions or extensions for grave crimes where societal harm outweighs staleness risks, such as capital offenses, terrorism, and certain sex crimes against minors, which carry no limitations to prioritize deterrence and victim accountability over potential evidentiary decay.^[3] For instance, federal law eliminates time limits for prosecutions punishable by death or involving child sexual exploitation, reflecting a policy judgment that the gravity of these acts justifies perpetual prosecutorial authority despite challenges like witness unavailability.^[3] Public policy exceptions frequently manifest through tolling mechanisms, which pause the limitations clock during periods of defendant concealment, fugitivity, or jurisdictional absence, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3290, ensuring that evasion tactics do not shield perpetrators while preserving core time-bound incentives for prompt investigation.^[65] Legislatures have enacted extensions for offenses like fraud or corruption where concealment delays discovery, with federal provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3284 allowing tolling until the fraud's fruits are enjoyed, grounded in the rationale that perpetrators should not benefit from their own obfuscation.^[3] In state jurisdictions, similar policies apply; Ohio, for example, extends felony limitations to six years but tolls for minors or incompetents until they can pursue justice, balancing victim protection against indefinite exposure.^[104] Critics argue that expansive exceptions undermine the limitations' foundational purposes—mitigating wrongful convictions from degraded evidence and faded memories—particularly for extended sex crime statutes, which empirical data links to higher exoneration risks as time erodes corroboration.^[105] ^[106] Nonetheless, policy-driven reforms persist, such as revivals for DNA matches in cold cases under laws like California's, where post-conviction testing has identified perpetrators decades later, justifying overrides when new forensic evidence emerges to serve retributive and deterrent aims without relying on initial timely filings.^[107] These exceptions highlight tensions: while enabling justice in concealed or latent crimes, they risk eroding legal certainty, prompting debates over whether empirical exoneration rates should cap extensions beyond empirically validated discovery windows.^[108]

Jurisdictional Variations

Common Law Systems

In common law jurisdictions, statutes of limitations establish fixed periods within which legal proceedings must commence, balancing the need for redress against the risks of evidentiary degradation and indefinite liability. These doctrines, originating in English equity practices but now extensively codified, apply variably to civil actions (e.g., contracts, torts) and criminal prosecutions, with tolling provisions for factors like fraud concealment or minority status. Jurisdictions emphasize procedural fairness, often distinguishing between accrual at injury occurrence versus discovery, though absolute bars like statutes of repose may override in construction defect cases.^[1]

United States

Federal Framework

Federal criminal prosecutions generally face a five-year limitation period under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), commencing from the offense date, excluding exceptions such as no limit for capital crimes, certain terrorism offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 3286, or sex crimes against minors per the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Civil claims under federal statutes typically carry four-year limits from enactment or injury, as standardized by 28 U.S.C. § 1658 for post-1990 laws, though specific acts like antitrust violations under 15 U.S.C. § 15b allow four years. These frameworks prioritize prosecutorial diligence while accommodating public interest in grave offenses.^[3]^[32]^[103]

State-Level Variations and Reforms

State statutes diverge markedly; for instance, New York imposes three years for most torts and six for contracts under CPLR § 213, while California sets two years for personal injury (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1). Reforms include adoption of discovery rules in over 40 states, tolling until reasonable awareness of harm, as in California's delayed accrual for latent injuries. Recent changes, such as extensions for childhood sexual abuse survivors (e.g., New York's 2019 Child Victims Act reviving claims up to age 55), reflect evidentiary policy shifts amid criticism of rigid bars in prolonged abuse cases, though some states cap revivals to avoid open-ended exposure. Statutes of repose, operative in 45 states for products liability (often 10-15 years from sale), provide defendant certainty irrespective of discovery.^[109]^[110]

United Kingdom and Commonwealth Nations

In England and Wales, the Limitation Act 1980 governs civil claims, mandating six years from breach for simple contracts (s. 5) and torts causing non-personal injury damage (s. 2), or three years for personal injury from knowledge date (s. 11), with discretionary court extensions under s. 33 for equitable reasons like delayed diagnosis. Criminal indictable offenses carry no limitation, enabling pursuits decades later (e.g., historical abuse prosecutions), whereas summary offenses require initiation within six months (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s. 127).^[111]^[112] Commonwealth variations mirror this duality: Canada's provincial regimes, such as Ontario's Limitations Act, 2002, impose ultimate two-year discovery-based limits for civil torts with a 15-year long-stop, while indictable crimes lack limits but summary convictions demand proceedings within six to 12 months (Criminal Code, s. 786). Australia's state laws set six years for contracts and three for personal injury (e.g., NSW Limitation Act 1969), with criminal summary offenses limited to six to 12 months (varying by jurisdiction) and no bar for indictable matters, underscoring a preference for prosecutorial latitude in serious cases over uniform repose.^[113]^[114]^[115]

United States

In the United States, statutes of limitations function as procedural bars to lawsuits or prosecutions after specified periods, balancing the need for timely justice against the erosion of evidence and witness reliability over time. Federal statutes govern claims arising under federal law, while state statutes apply to state-law claims, with significant variations across the 50 states and territories. These limits typically begin accruing from the date of the wrongful act or, in some cases, discovery of harm, though tolling provisions may pause the clock for factors like minority status or concealment.^[116]^[3]

Federal Framework

Federal criminal prosecutions for non-capital offenses generally must commence within five years of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3282, reflecting congressional intent to ensure prosecutions occur while evidence remains viable.^[11] No statute of limitations applies to capital offenses or certain severe crimes, including those involving minors under 18 U.S.C. § 3299 (e.g., aggravated sexual abuse of a child) and specific terrorism acts under 18 U.S.C. § 3286, which extend to eight years.^[103]^[3] For civil actions, the general limitations period for enforcing fines, penalties, or forfeitures is five years from accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Federal causes of action created by statutes enacted after December 1, 1990, carry a four-year limit from accrual unless a different period is specified, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1658; for instance, securities fraud claims under this provision allow two years from discovery or five years from violation, whichever is earlier.^[91] Certain federal civil rights claims, such as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, borrow the state's personal injury limitations period, typically two to three years, highlighting reliance on state law for procedural uniformity in mixed-jurisdiction cases.^[35]

State-Level Variations and Reforms

State statutes of limitations exhibit wide divergence: criminal felonies often face three- to seven-year limits, with no time bar for homicide in all states and for serious sex crimes in many, as murder prosecutions prioritize public safety over evidentiary staleness.^[117]^[118] Civil claims vary similarly; personal injury torts commonly accrue within two years (e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1), contracts four to six years, while property disputes may extend to ten years or more, reflecting legislative judgments on claim types and repose needs.^[101] Tolling for minors or incapacity is nearly universal, suspending limits until majority or competency restoration.^[117] Reforms since the 2010s have focused on extending or eliminating limits for child sexual abuse, driven by advocacy for delayed-reporting victims; as of 2023, 33 states enacted civil revival windows or age extensions (e.g., to age 40 or discovery-plus-seven years), enabling retroactive suits against institutions like churches or schools.^[119]^[120] Countervailing tort reforms in states like Florida (2023 legislation shortening negligence limits to two years) aim to curb protracted liability and insurance costs, amid debates over fairness to defendants facing faded evidence.^[121]^[51] These changes underscore tensions between victim access and due process, with empirical studies on abuse claims showing mixed outcomes on evidentiary reliability post-reform.^[122]

Federal Framework

In the United States federal system, statutes of limitations for civil actions arising under federal law are governed by specific provisions in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, with Congress establishing time limits to balance the need for repose against the pursuit of justice. For civil claims under federal statutes enacted after December 1, 1990, a uniform four-year limitations period applies from the date the cause of action accrues, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).^[91] This catch-all provision addresses gaps in older statutes lacking explicit limits, though pre-1990 enactments often borrow analogous state personal injury statutes or incorporate specific federal deadlines, such as six years for contract claims against the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 or two years for tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act per 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).^[91] ^[32] Federal courts recognize equitable tolling as a doctrine to pause these periods in extraordinary circumstances where a plaintiff has pursued rights diligently but faced external obstacles beyond control, such as active deception by the defendant or government interference, though it requires case-specific justification and is not freely available.^[68] Accrual typically begins at injury discovery under the discovery rule for latent harms, but statutes of repose—absolute cutoffs independent of discovery—may override in areas like product liability under federal law.^[68] For criminal prosecutions, the default limitations period is five years from the offense date for non-capital federal crimes, as established in 18 U.S.C. § 3282, ensuring prosecutions occur while evidence remains viable without indefinite threat of liability.^[11] ^[103] No limitations apply to capital offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 3281, reflecting public policy prioritizing accountability for the gravest crimes, while extensions exist for specific offenses: eight years for terrorism-related acts under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b, or until a child victim reaches age 25 (or indefinitely if the perpetrator is identified via DNA post-expiration) for sexual abuse or kidnapping per 18 U.S.C. § 3283.^[103] Tolling occurs during fugitive status or for conspiracies continuing beyond the substantive offense, but equitable tolling is narrower in criminal contexts, limited to rare due process violations like deliberate government concealment.^[3]

State-Level Variations and Reforms

In the United States, criminal statutes of limitations vary substantially by state and offense severity, with no time limit applying universally to murder and certain other capital crimes to prioritize public safety over potential evidentiary degradation.^[118] ^[117] For non-capital felonies, periods typically range from three to ten years; California imposes a six-year limit for most felonies excluding serious sexual offenses, while Texas differentiates by degree with three years for lower felonies and ten for higher ones.^[117] Misdemeanors generally carry one- to three-year limits, such as one year for Class 1 and 2 offenses in Colorado, though petty offenses may fall to six months.^[117] States often toll these periods for minors or fugitives, but exceptions like DNA evidence discovery can extend timelines in jurisdictions such as New York.^[123] Civil statutes of limitations exhibit even broader divergence, tailored to claim types and reflecting state evaluations of claim viability. Personal injury actions require filing within one to six years, with Kentucky's one-year cap contrasting North Dakota's six-year allowance; most states cluster at two to three years, as in Alabama (two years) or New York (three years).^[10] Written contract breaches span three to ten years—Delaware at three years, Illinois and Rhode Island at ten—while oral contracts range from two to ten years, exemplified by California's two-year period versus Louisiana's ten.^[10] Property damage claims vary similarly, often two to six years, with Indiana allowing six for real property but two for personal.^[10] Tolling provisions for incapacity or fraud concealment apply inconsistently, influencing effective deadlines. Recent reforms have concentrated on extending or abolishing limitations for sexual assault and child sexual abuse, motivated by empirical evidence of trauma-induced delayed reporting, where victims often disclose decades later.^[48] At least 14 states have eliminated criminal SOL for specified sex crimes, with retroactive application in cases like Nevada's 2015 law allowing prior prosecutions.^[48] Civil reforms for child abuse claims affect over 30 states through age extensions, eliminations, or temporary revival windows; California removed its SOL in 2003, New York extended to age 55 in 2019 alongside a one-year look-back window yielding thousands of filings, and Hawaii lengthened to age 31 in 2012.^[124] More recent enactments include Washington's 2024 elimination for offenses after June 6, Oklahoma's extension to age 45 for child sexual crimes effective 2025, and Michigan's 2025 one-year revival for adult survivors.^[125] ^[47] ^[126] These changes, accelerated post-2017 amid institutional abuse revelations, aim to enable justice without uniform empirical validation of improved outcomes, as prosecution success depends on preserved evidence.^[120]

United Kingdom and Commonwealth Nations

In England and Wales, civil claims are governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which prescribes primary periods of six years for actions founded on contract from the date of breach and six years for tort claims from the date of damage, reduced to three years for personal injury claims from the date of knowledge of the injury.^[111]^[127] Actions to recover land are subject to a 12-year limit from accrual of the right.^[111] Extensions may apply under section 32 for deliberate concealment or fraud, postponing accrual until discovery.^[127] For criminal prosecutions in England and Wales, no general statute of limitations applies to indictable offenses tried in the Crown Court, allowing indefinite pursuit of serious crimes such as murder or rape to prioritize public interest in accountability over evidentiary fade.^[128] Summary-only offenses in magistrates' courts, however, must generally commence within six months of the offense under section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, with exceptions for specific statutes like certain regulatory breaches.^[129]^[128] Scotland employs a distinct regime under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, with a five-year prescriptive period for most contractual and delictual (tortious) obligations from the date the right to sue arises, and three years for personal injury from the later of injury or knowledge thereof.^[127] Criminal proceedings for summary cases carry a six-month limit regardless of court, while solemn procedure offenses (indictable equivalents) have no time bar.^[127] Northern Ireland mirrors England and Wales closely via the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, applying six-year limits for contract and non-personal injury torts, three years for personal injuries, and no general criminal limitation for serious offenses.^[127] Commonwealth nations, inheriting common law traditions, exhibit jurisdictional variations without uniform federal overlays except where applicable. In Australia, civil limitation periods are state-determined, typically six years for contract and tort claims (three years for personal injury in states like New South Wales under the Limitation Act 1969), with courts empowered to extend for discretionary reasons like disability or fraud.^[130] Criminal indictable offenses generally lack time limits, while summary matters face six-to-12-month constraints varying by state legislation. Canada's provinces set civil periods provincially, such as two years for torts and personal injuries under British Columbia's Limitation Act (post-2013 reforms harmonizing discoverability), and six years for contracts in Ontario, with federal criminal code imposing no limits on indictable offenses but six months for summary convictions.^[127] These frameworks reflect adaptations to local needs, often incorporating discoverability rules to balance repose with justice, though empirical critiques note inconsistent application across indictable crimes due to prosecutorial discretion.^[130]

Civil Law Traditions

In civil law traditions, rooted in Roman ius commune and codified in national civil codes, the analogue to common law statutes of limitations is extinctive prescription (prescription extinctive), which substantively extinguishes a right or obligation through the passage of time without enforcement action by the holder.^[131] Unlike procedural limitations that merely bar remedies while preserving underlying rights, extinctive prescription eradicates the claim itself, promoting finality and protecting defendants from indefinite liability; this distinction arises from civil law's emphasis on codified substantive rules over judge-made procedural defenses.^[132] Periods are fixed by statute, generally shorter than historical common law defaults, and apply to civil obligations, delicts, and property claims, with origins traceable to Roman concepts like exceptio temporis for barring actions after long delay.^[23] Prescription typically begins accruing from the moment the right vests or the creditor gains knowledge of the facts enabling enforcement, subject to interruptions (e.g., formal demand or suit filing, which restarts the period) and suspensions (e.g., for incapacity, negotiation, or external impediments like war).^[133] In France, the Civil Code's Title XX, reformed by Ordinance No. 2008-1341 dated December 18, 2008 (effective March 1, 2010), sets a general five-year period for personal and real actions under Article 2224, reduced from the prior 30-year default to enhance predictability, with shorter terms for specific delicts (e.g., three years for torts under Article 2226).^[134] Germany's Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), enacted January 1, 1900, prescribes a standard three-year limitation under § 195 for contractual and most tort claims, commencing at the end of the year of accrual or knowledge, extendable to 30 years for intentional bodily injury or property rights under §§ 197-199.^[135] Comparable frameworks exist across continental Europe, such as Italy's Codice Civile (general four-year term for obligations, five for torts) and Spain's Código Civil (15 years general, one year for certain contracts), reflecting harmonization efforts under EU directives while retaining national variations for cultural and policy reasons.^[136] These systems prioritize empirical repose—evidenced by codified accrual triggers tied to verifiable events—over discretionary equitable tolling, though reforms like France's incorporate discovery rules to balance claimant diligence against evidentiary decay.^[131]

Prescription in Continental Europe

In civil law jurisdictions of continental Europe, the doctrine of extinctive prescription serves as the primary mechanism for barring claims, substantively extinguishing the underlying right due to the creditor's prolonged inaction rather than merely procedural foreclosure.^[131] This contrasts with common law systems by integrating prescription into the core of substantive law, where the passage of time erodes the right itself, promoting legal certainty and resource allocation efficiency.^[137] Prescription periods vary by claim type, jurisdiction, and circumstances, but generally commence upon the creditor's knowledge of the facts constituting the claim, with provisions for interruption via acknowledgment, judicial action, or negotiation.^[136] France's Civil Code, reformed by Ordinance No. 2008-1341 on December 19, 2008, establishes a uniform general prescription period of five years for most civil obligations, starting from the date the creditor knew or should have known of the damaging facts and the debtor's identity.^[134] For personal injury or property damage, the period extends to ten years from the act or its aggravating circumstances.^[138] Parties may contractually shorten or extend periods within limits, but extensions cannot exceed twenty years from origin, and suspension applies in cases like minority or judicial incapacity.^[139] In Germany, the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB, effective since January 1, 1900, with amendments) sets a standard Verjährung period of three years for contractual and delictual claims, calculated from the end of the calendar year in which the claim arose and the creditor gained knowledge of essential facts. For claims against builders or latent defects, a five-year period applies from completion, while real property rights may extend to thirty years in exceptional cases.^[140] Interruption occurs through formal demand or lawsuit filing, restarting the clock, though post-2002 reforms limit contractual deviations to prevent undue prolongation beyond thirty years. Italy's Codice Civile prescribes an ordinary ten-year period for rights not subject to shorter terms, running from the moment the action could be exercised, as codified in Article 2946 since the 1942 unification.^[141] Tort claims prescribe in five years from knowledge of damage and wrongdoer, or ten years absolutely from the event; insurance contracts limit to two years under Article 2952.^[142] Distinguishing prescrizione (interruptible by citation or recognition) from decadenza (strict forfeiture), Italian courts emphasize substantive extinction, with Supreme Court rulings clarifying starts for non-evident harms.^[143] Similar frameworks operate in other continental systems, such as Belgium's substantive prescription under the 1995 Code reforms and the Netherlands' five-year short prescription for obligations with three-year awareness triggers, reflecting Napoleonic and Germanic codal influences prioritizing evidentiary stability over indefinite liability.^[144] EU directives, like the 2011 Late Payment Directive (2011/7/EU), harmonize certain commercial periods to thirty days, but national variations persist absent full unification.^[145]

Variations in Asia and Other Regions

In China, the Civil Code establishes a general limitation period of three years for civil claims, commencing from the date when the claimant knows or should know of the rights infringement and the obligor's identity, effective since the Code's implementation on January 1, 2021.^[146] This represents an extension from the prior two-year period under the General Principles of Civil Law, with exceptions for specific claims such as those involving negotiable instruments or environmental torts, which may extend to longer durations or lack limitations altogether.^[147] Interruption occurs upon acknowledgment by the obligor or initiation of legal proceedings, resetting the period.^[148] Japan's Civil Code, amended effective April 1, 2020, standardizes extinctive prescription periods to mitigate prior complexity: claims generally extinguish after five years from the creditor's knowledge of the claim and claimant identity, or ten years from the act giving rise to the claim, whichever is earlier.^[149] Commercial transaction claims follow a five-year period, while tort claims damaging life or body extend to twenty years objectively or five years subjectively.^[150] These reforms aim to balance creditor protection with legal certainty, with suspension possible for minors or during force majeure, but exclusion periods for fixed obligations remain non-extendable.^[151] In South Korea, the Civil Code prescribes a ten-year general limitation for most claims from the time performance becomes due, with shorter periods of three years for short-term claims like wages or five years for merchants' books.^[152] Tort claims limit to three years from knowledge of damage and perpetrator, or ten years from occurrence.^[153] The Commercial Code aligns merchant claims to five years, emphasizing evidentiary preservation; limitations interrupt via demand or suit filing, but do not reset fully.^[154] Vietnam's 2015 Civil Code sets a three-year limitation for contract disputes and compensation requests from the infringement date, with one-year periods for certain transport or product liability claims.^[155] Suspension applies during negotiation or mediation, reflecting civil law influences from French and socialist traditions, prioritizing state-mediated resolution before litigation. In Latin American civil law jurisdictions, prescriptive periods vary but typically mirror European models: for instance, Mexico's Federal Civil Code imposes ten years for general obligations, four years for contracts, and one year for torts, with tolling for incapacity or absence.^[156] Argentina's Code sets five to ten years depending on claim type, emphasizing acquisitive prescription for property. Brazil's Civil Code (2002) uses three to ten years, with ten for personal actions, interrupted by judicial or extrajudicial acts. These frameworks prioritize codified certainty over common law discovery rules, though reforms in countries like Colombia extend periods for consumer protections.^[157]

International Crimes and Supranational Rules

The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 26, 1968, and entering into force on November 11, 1970, establishes that no statutory limitation applies to war crimes as defined in the 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, crimes against humanity as outlined in the same charter, and genocide as per the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, regardless of the date of commission. This treaty, ratified by over 50 states as of recent records, obligates parties to adopt domestic measures ensuring prosecution remains possible indefinitely for these offenses, reflecting a post-World War II consensus on impunity's unacceptability for atrocities.^[158] The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on July 17, 1998, and entering into force on July 1, 2002, explicitly reinforces this principle in Article 29, stating that crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression—are not subject to any statute of limitations.^[159] Ratified by 124 states, the statute's provision applies to investigations and prosecutions before the ICC, which operates on complementarity with national courts, allowing intervention only where states fail to act genuinely.^[160] This imprescriptibility aligns with customary international law, as evidenced by ad hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (established 1993) and Rwanda (1994), which imposed no time bars on indictments for similar crimes.^[161] In the European context, the 1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, adopted by the Council of Europe and entering into force in 1976, extends imprescriptibility to crimes against humanity under the 1945 London Agreement, war crimes from the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and genocide, requiring signatory states (including non-EU members like the UK) to eliminate prescription periods domestically. While the European Union lacks a unified supranational criminal code prescribing limitations, its Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA on attacks against persons and Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on terrorism encourage member states to align on extended or absent limitation periods for serious cross-border offenses, often incorporating international standards to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and extradition without time bars for core international crimes. Universal jurisdiction exercised by several EU states, such as Germany's Code of Crimes against International Law (2002), typically omits statutes of limitations for genocide and war crimes, enabling prosecutions decades after events like the Armenian Genocide or Rwandan atrocities.

References

[1]
statute of limitations | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A statute of limitations is a law that bars claims after a certain period of time passes after an injury, varying by jurisdiction and claim type.
[2]
Glossary of Legal Terms - United States Courts
Statute. A law passed by a legislature. Statute of limitations. The time within which a lawsuit must be filed or a criminal prosecution begun. The deadline ...<|separator|>
[3]
Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview
Nov 14, 2017 · A statute of limitations is the time period for legal proceedings, ensuring prompt prosecution. Most federal crimes have a 5-year limit, but ...
[4]
[PDF] Limitless Limitations: How War Overwhelms Criminal Statutes of ...
Statutes of limitations arose in Roman law to bar litigation in civil actions after a certain point in time.22 The concept of limiting a wrongdoer's period of ...
[5]
[PDF] The Puzzling Purposes of Statutes of Limitation
Statutes of limitation determine if a claim is time-barred, and the article questions the justification for depriving rights due to time lapse.
[6]
Exceptions to the Statute of Limitations: The Discovery Rule
Apr 24, 2022 · The “discovery rule” is an exception to the statute of limitations that extends the deadline for filing a case based on the time it took to discover your ...
[7]
Understanding Statute of Limitations: Types, Examples, and Legal ...
Aug 22, 2025 · Advantages of Statutes of Limitations. A statute of limitations is sometimes controversial due to cases where legal action cannot be brought ...
[8]
"Statutes of Limitations: A Policy Analysis in the Context of Reparatio ...
This article discusses the underlying policy rationales for statutes of limitations and their exceptions, as demonstrated by Supreme Court precedents.
[9]
Statutes of Limitations and Procedural Due Process - Law.Cornell.Edu
A statute of limitations is a law that imposes a time limit for bringing a case; once the statute of limitations expires, a person cannot pursue even an ...
[10]
Statute of Limitations for Civil Cases by State - Nolo
The chart below contains common statutes of limitations—the number of years you have to file a particular type of lawsuit—for all 50 states and the District ...
[11]
18 U.S. Code § 3282 - Offenses not capital - Law.Cornell.Edu
No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five ...
[12]
24. Statutes of Limitation and Repose - Tort Law - CALI
Recall that statutes of limitation are procedural and forward-looking, aimed at the plaintiff; statutes of repose are substantive and retrospective, aimed ...
[13]
[PDF] of limitations and statutes of - repose in product liability
Unlike a typical tort statute of limitations that may begin to run at the time a product causes an injury to person or property, a statute of repose may ...
[14]
Statutes of Repose Vs. Statutes of Limitation - Enjuris
A statute of repose starts after a defendant's action, unrelated to the injury, while a statute of limitations starts after the injury, and can be tolled.
[15]
[PDF] Statutes of Limitation and of Repose;Symposium on Product Liability
The statute of limitation thus puts a time limit on the plaintiff's right to seek a remedy for a breach. The statute of repose, on the other hand, limits the ...<|separator|>
[16]
Laches | Practical Law - Westlaw
Laches is distinguishable from the statute of limitation, which prevents a party from asserting claims after the designated limitations period has expired.
[17]
How to Determine Whether the Statute of Limitations or Laches ...
Aug 10, 2016 · For legal claims seeking legal relief, statute of limitations applies strictly. For equitable claims, laches applies. If legal claim seeks ...
[18]
Understanding The Difference Between Statutes of Limitations and ...
Jan 22, 2024 · Statutes of limitations limit the time to file a claim from when it accrues, while statutes of repose bar suits after a set time, regardless of ...
[19]
More on Adverse Possession - Property Volume Two
Adverse possession does not create title by prescription apart from the statute of limitations. Walsh, Title by Adverse Possession, 17 N.Y.U.L.Q.Rev. 44, 82 ...<|separator|>
[20]
Chapter 926 - Statute of Limitations - Connecticut General Assembly
Adverse possession. Rules strictly construed. 29 C. 398. Gives fee simple after 15 years, unless one of exceptions of statute apply. 5 C. 298; 14 C. 290; 19 ...
[21]
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND ITS PURPOSE - Jus Corpus
Dec 12, 2022 · In ancient Greece, every offence except murder had a limitation period of five years and such statutes were also a part of the medieval Roman ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins<|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] notes the statute of limitations in criminal law
It is the purpose of this Note to examine the bases for enactment of statutes of limitations in criminal law, and to indicate certain problems and ...
[23]
[PDF] Some Remarks on Extinctive Prescription in Legal History
Jun 1, 2022 · This paper deals with Limitation of actions, or extinctive prescription, as the subject is usually called in Civil Law jurisdictions. This is ...
[24]
Statute of Limitations - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
A statute of limitations is defined as a procedural rule that establishes a time limit within which a potential plaintiff must initiate a legal claim.Missing: distinctions | Show results with:distinctions
[25]
the comparative legal history of limitation and prescription
Aug 6, 2025 · ... laches is used to deal with cases that at law would have been. caught by the statute of limitations. The word “laches” stems from the Law.
[26]
The comparative legal history of limitation and prescription
The medieval notion of laches is used to deal with cases that at law would have been caught by the statute of limitations. The word “laches” stems from the Law.
[27]
[PDF] A Brief History of Time Limits
Perhaps it is fitting that Pascal was born in 1623, the year of the enactment of England's first statute of limitations for in personam actions. That law, the ...
[28]
[PDF] Has the Time (of Laches) Come? Recent Nazi-Era Art Litigation in ...
May 1, 2011 · By bringing an action in conversion, the true owner seeks monetary damages for the “wrongful possession or disposition of another's property as ...
[29]
Limitation Act, 1939 - Wiley Online Library
This Act, which came into operation on the 1st July, 1940. is founded upon the Fifth Interim Report of the Law Revision Committee. Although there are no ...Missing: evolution | Show results with:evolution<|separator|>
[30]
[PDF] Civil Code 1804 EN.pdf
OR,. THE FRENCH CIVIL CODE. LITERALLY TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL AND OFFICIAL EDITION,. PUBLISHED AT PARIS, IN 1804, ... Of prescription by ten and twenty years.
[31]
France - Prescription in Tort Law
Dec 22, 2020 · The French code civil, which was adopted in 1804 ... code civil, which resulted in an extraordinary variety of applicable prescription periods.
[32]
Federal Statutes of Limitations - Varghese Summersett
Jul 6, 2024 · This article provides an in-depth examination of federal statutes of limitations, covering their history, purpose, application, and notable exceptions
[33]
Statute of Limitations for State and Federal Crimes
The English Parliament in the 17th century codified the statute of limitations into common law, on which the U.S. largely based its conceptual legal framework.
[34]
The Tortured Relationship Between Statutes of Limitations and ...
Oct 18, 2023 · The rationale behind SOL's was and is to protect parties against stale disputes, where the passage of time has caused evidence to be lost, ...
[35]
The Appropriate Statute of Limitations in Federal Civil Rights Cases
The rationale is that the passage of time creates problems relating to loss of evidence, the death of witnesses, faulty memory, and imperfect recollection, as ...Missing: evidentiary | Show results with:evidentiary
[36]
A New Approach to Old Cases: Reconsidering Statutes of Limitations
Jan 25, 2004 · This Article proposes a new model of temporal limitation that avoids the evidentiary shortcomings of the two current models.
[37]
The Importance of the Statute of Repose in Products Liability Lawsuits
Jan 17, 2025 · A statute of repose is a legal provision that sets an absolute time limit on when a lawsuit can be filed after a product has been manufactured or sold.
[38]
The State of the Statute of Repose in the State of New York
Aug 31, 2023 · This is different than a Statute of Limitations, which sets a ... The rationale behind the Statute of Repose is to allow design ...
[39]
[PDF] Moral and Evidentiary Statutes of Limitations
Statutes of limitations curtail judgment errors by placing hard limits on how far back a plaintiff can reach for proof. Because law assumes that older evidence ...Missing: decay | Show results with:decay<|control11|><|separator|>
[40]
Green v. Brennan - Harvard Law Review
Nov 10, 2016 · Statutes of limitations are designed in part to induce prompt filing and punish negligent plaintiffs who sit on their claims. Unclear ...
[41]
[PDF] Efficient Time Bars? A New Rationale for the Existence of Statutes of ...
the rationale for statutes of limitations in ... the quality of evidence deteriorates with time and assert that fairness requires timely prosecution.<|control11|><|separator|>
[42]
[PDF] CS/HB 297 Limitations on Actions Other than for the Recovery of ...
Jan 12, 2016 · year statute of limitations and a 10-year statute of repose. The ... designed to encourage diligence in the prosecution of claims ...
[43]
Statute Of Limitations | Verdelski Miller | Top Defense
The statute of limitations holds significant importance in the legal system for various reasons: a. Legal Certainty: It provides legal certainty by ...
[44]
A Brief Guide to Statutes of Limitations - LegalFix
May 29, 2024 · What is the “Statute of Limitations”? The concept of setting a time frame for bringing legal action traces back to ancient Roman law. Roman ...
[45]
[PDF] Trauma's Impact on Rape & Sexual Assault Statutes of Limitations
Nov 13, 2023 · If the statute of limitations has run, many victims will not report the crime or, if they do, will be told their case cannot proceed. Therefore, ...
[46]
[PDF] HI1958 re CIVIL SOL extension.docx - Google Docs - Child USA
In a study of survivors of abuse in Boy Scouts of America, 51% of survivors disclosed their abuse for the first time at age 50 or older . ○ An estimated 70% of ...
[47]
2025 SOL Tracker - CHILD USA
summary of criminal sol elimination laws in 44 states, federal government and d.c. ; West Virginia, None for sexual assault, 1st degree sexual abuse, sexual ...
[48]
Statutes of Limitation in Sexual Assault Cases | FBI - LEB
Aug 11, 2025 · The next question is whether the past statute of limitations had already lapsed before the prosecution began. ... preservation of evidence ...
[49]
Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Child Victims Act, Advancing ...
Feb 25, 2025 · The law, which took effect on October 1, 2023, eliminates the statute of limitations that historically barred adult survivors' cases and allows ...
[50]
Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Civil Statute of ...
Feb 12, 2025 · With the addition of Maryland, 19 states, two US territories, and the federal government have eliminated the civil statute of limitations for ...
[51]
Civil Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes: Reform Enables Justice
Eliminating arbitrary and archaic statutes of limitations allows victims access to justice, protects members of the community, identifies predators and the ...Missing: abolishing | Show results with:abolishing
[52]
Reforming statutes of limitations: justice shouldn't expire
Mar 19, 2024 · While the call to abolish SOLs is compelling, changing the law requires empirical evidence and legal arguments. CHILD USA leads the SOL reform ...
[53]
[PDF] The Statute of Limitations and the Prosecution of Sexual Assault Case
While there is a legislative trend towards expanding the SOLs for sex offenses, cases will inevitably arise – often through matches of DNA evidence in older ...Missing: empirical extensions
[54]
Should Statutes of Limitations for Rape Be Abolished?
Jun 19, 2018 · They argue that the statutes are archaic, built on outdated notions about sex crimes and the effects of trauma.
[55]
[PDF] The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns
In a general sense, a statute of repose and a statute of limitations are one in the same. Indeed, Black's Law Dictionary defines them as such: "Statutes of ...
[56]
[PDF] The Evolution of Useful Life Statutes in the Products Liability Reform ...
statute of limitations start period at sale rather than at injury); Note ... eliminating indefinite liability). 97. Cf Birnbaum, supra note 86, at 279 ...
[57]
[PDF] TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 686 - Maryland
Feb 23, 2023 · The purpose of a statute of repose is to prevent unpredictability for industry and professionals engaged in certain trades and to protect ...
[58]
New York waived the statute of limitations for civil sex abuse suits for ...
Dec 7, 2023 · New York waived the statute of limitations for civil sex abuse suits for a year. It resulted in over 3000 lawsuits.
[59]
Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury in Texas
Oct 13, 2024 · Preservation of evidence: Over time, evidence can deteriorate, be lost, or become less reliable. · Fairness to defendants: It's considered unfair ...
[60]
The passage of time and the erosion of evidence - BLG
May 14, 2025 · The passage of time, which erodes the quality of evidence, often does so to the detriment of the defendants; this reality rings particularly ...Missing: decay | Show results with:decay
[61]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4573203
[62]
10-Year Lawsuit Delay? Expert Q&A on Your Rights & Options
Oct 5, 2025 · After 10 years, we find ourselves at a severe disadvantage for a fair trial; records have been lost in a flooded warehouse, others have degraded ...<|separator|>
[63]
toll | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
To toll means to stop the running of a time period, especially a time period set by a statute of limitations. To bar or to take away.
[64]
Tolling or Suspending the Florida Statutes of Limitations Pursuant to ...
Apr 4, 2018 · Unlike 'accrual,' which affects when the statute of limitations begins, 'tolling' suspends the running of the statute of limitations time clock ...
[65]
657. Tolling of Statute of Limitations - Department of Justice
Tolling of Statute of Limitations. The running of statutes of limitations is tolled during periods of fugitivity. 18 U.S.C. § 3290. Physical absence from the ...
[66]
5 Situations Where the Statute of Limitations Is “Tolled” in California
Apr 12, 2025 · Sometimes the statute of limitations is suspended or does not begin running for a certain period of time. This is known as “tolling.” A ...
[67]
tolling a statute of limitations - IRMI
Tolling a statute of limitations occurs when a time period during which a statute of limitations for bringing a specific type of legal action is temporarily ...
[68]
Supreme Court Supports Equitable Tolling to Extend Legal Deadlines
Apr 26, 2022 · A unanimous Supreme Court on April 21, 2022, issued an important ruling applicable when consumer practitioners have difficulty meeting a limitations period.Missing: evidentiary rationale
[69]
Equitable Tolling — Gulisano Law, PLLC
Dec 29, 2023 · Equitable tolling is a judicially created legal doctrine that, if applicable, can save a plaintiff's otherwise untimely claim from being dismissed.<|separator|>
[70]
Court of Appeal Holds That Equitable Tolling Is Not Simply a ...
a judicially created doctrine to suspend or extend a statute of limitations as necessary to ensure fundamental ...
[71]
U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 ...
Feb 27, 2019 · 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019). Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine providing that a statute of limitations will be suspended or temporarily stopped ...
[72]
Equitable Tolling | Section 2255 Statute of Limitations | 802-444-4357
Equitable tolling is a court's discretionary extension of a legal deadline as a result of extraordinary circumstances that prevented one from complying despite ...
[73]
Does Filing a Lawsuit Toll the Statute of Limitations?
In some jurisdictions, the statute of limitations for the parties in a civil case may be tolled, or paused, while criminal proceedings are ongoing. Federal and ...
[74]
Tolling the Statute of Limitations in a Criminal Case - Nolo
When the statute of limitations tolls, that means it has been legally suspended -- in other words, the clock stops running for a certain period of time.<|separator|>
[75]
Tolling Statutes of Limitations in Products Liability Cases
Oct 15, 2020 · Many states have adopted a “discovery rule” that tolls the statute of limitations until the injury has been “discovered.”
[76]
New York Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule
One of the most prevalent scenarios for the discovery rule is in medical malpractice cases. For example, if a patient undergoes surgery and ...
[77]
Court analyzes the discovery rule tolling the statute of limitations
In products liability cases, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know, (1) ...
[78]
Application of the Fraudulent Concealment Exception to ...
Apr 18, 2025 · In this case, the two year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff either discovers or should have discovered that he ...
[79]
Supreme Court Clarifies That Copyright Damages Are Not Limited to ...
May 10, 2024 · In Petrella, the Supreme Court held that laches cannot bar a claim for copyright infringement damages brought within the three-year window ...
[80]
https://www.arnoldporter.com/-/media/files/perspectives/publications/2013/03/supreme-court-holds-discovery-rule-does-not-appl__/files/newsletter-item/fileattachment/adv313supremecourtholdsdiscoveryruledoesnotapply__.pdf
[81]
Discovery Rule Established in Gaddis v. Smith - Texas - CaseMine
The Supreme Court of Texas's decision in Gaddis v. Smith represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of tort law within the state. By embracing the 'discovery ...
[82]
Has The Statute Of Limitations Expired On My Claim? Consider The ...
Sep 13, 2022 · The discovery rule will not prevent the statute of limitations from running just because the plaintiff is unsophisticated and/or did not receive competent ...<|separator|>
[83]
statute of repose | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A statute of repose is any law that bars claims after some action by the defendant, even if the plaintiff has not yet been injured.
[84]
Statute of Repose vs Statute of Limitations - Understand Your Issue
Mar 31, 2023 · A statute of repose sets a deadline based on the mere passage of time or the occurrence of a certain event that doesn't itself cause harm or ...
[85]
Statute of Repose | Practical Law - Westlaw
A law that extinguishes a right of action after a specified period of time has elapsed, regardless of whether the cause of action has accrued.
[86]
Statutes of Limitations and Repose for Construction - Related Claims
Sep 19, 2024 · A statute of repose limits legal action after a set time, starting from substantial completion, while a statute of limitations starts when ...
[87]
Statutes of Repose - Anderson Jones PLLC
A Statute of Repose is a time-barring statute which prohibits bringing suit against a defendant a fixed number of years after a specific event occurs.
[88]
Statutes of Repose - Wright Constable & Skeen
Aug 29, 2023 · “A Statute of Repose constitutes a substantive definition of rights,” while a statute of limitations provides only “a procedural limitation.” ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale<|separator|>
[89]
Ten-Year Statute of Repose Act - American Legislative Exchange ...
Statutes of repose prohibit filing of claims beyond a specified period of time after the date of sale of a product or provision of a service.
[90]
Statute of Repose Vs. Statute of Limitations - Blog
Rating 4.9 (1,244) Mar 28, 2024 · The statute of limitations is triggered by the plaintiff's injury, whereas the statute of repose can begin well before the victim is harmed.
[91]
28 U.S. Code § 1658 - Time limitations on the commencement of ...
2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or. (2). 5 years after such violation. (Added Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 313(a), Dec ...
[92]
What Is the Statute of Repose? | Jonathan Perkins Injury Lawyers
The primary aim of the Statute of Repose is to provide finality and predictability for individuals and businesses by limiting the time they can be held liable ...<|separator|>
[93]
Deadlines to sue someone | California Courts | Self Help Guide
In general, you have to sue someone within a certain amount of time of something happening. This is called the statute of limitations.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[94]
Overview of the UCC's Statute of Limitations for Breach of Contract ...
Jul 1, 2025 · “(1) an action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued.
[95]
Using Contract Provisions to Shorten Statute of Limitations and ...
Jan 8, 2024 · It is possible to shorten a statute of limitations via contractual provisions. This can help reduce the risk to your business of adverse judgments and ...
[96]
Contractually Shortened Statutes of Limitations for Employee Claims
It discusses the enforceability of agreements to shorten the limitations period, pitfalls to avoid when drafting agreements, and various factors courts ...
[97]
Reclaiming Our Time: Ending the Use of Employment Contracts that ...
This substantive-rights analysis will demonstrate that all contractual provisions shortening the limitations period for Title VII claims should be invalid.<|separator|>
[98]
[PDF] Considerations for Contractual Provisions Extending Statutes of ...
59 (“[T]he shortening of statutes of limitations by contract is viewed by Delaware courts as an acceptable and easily understood contractual choice because it ...
[99]
Contractually Shortened Claim Limitation Periods are No Longer ...
Aug 7, 2025 · Employers often shorten the statute of limitations of certain state employment law claims to 180 days or six months in their applications…
[100]
Expect Careful Scrutiny of Contractually Shortened Statutes of ...
Nov 17, 2020 · The statutes of limitations set forth in the CPLR are default rules, and parties generally are free to modify default rules by agreement.
[101]
[PDF] STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR ALL 50 STATES - mwl-law.com
Statutes of limitations (SOL) are laws that limits the maximum time frame during which legal proceedings – civil or criminal – may be filed.Missing: variations | Show results with:variations
[102]
Civil Statutes of Limitations: 50-State Survey - Justia
Jun 16, 2023 · Claims for trespass, fraud, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or false arrest must be brought within two years, as well as claims for damage ...
[103]
650. Length of Limitations Period | United States Department of Justice
A prosecution for a non-capital offense shall be instituted within five years after the offense was committed.
[104]
Statute of Limitations for Criminal Offenses - Koffel Brininger Nesbitt
Generally, the government has six years for a felony, two years on a misdemeanor and six months for a minor misdemeanor. However, there are several exceptions ...
[105]
Expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes: Bad Public Policy
Jan 18, 2022 · At its core, this paper advances the argument that extending statutes of limitations unacceptably increases the risk of convicting innocent ...Missing: empirical evidence
[106]
[PDF] Expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes: Bad Public Policy
At its core, this paper advances the argument that extending statutes of limitations unacceptably increases the risk of convicting innocent defendants, a fact ...<|separator|>
[107]
Criminal Statutes of Limitations: Time Limits for State Criminal Charges
Mar 10, 2025 · The time limit for when prosecutors can file criminal charges is known as a criminal statute of limitations. Both state and federal laws forbid prosecutors ...
[108]
[PDF] Easing the Tension Between Statutes of Limitations and the ...
Perhaps the most important policy effectuated by criminal statutes of limitations is the protection of defendants. ... Criminal statutes of limitations serve ...
[109]
Statute of Limitations | NY CourtHelp
Aug 8, 2019 · Statutes of limitations are laws which say how long, after certain events, a case may be started based on those events.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[110]
[PDF] CANADA - Cozen O'Connor
Canada has its own limitation periods for each jurisdiction for different categories of claims. In addition some provinces have a maximum time period, ...
[111]
Limitation Act 1980 - Legislation.gov.uk
(b)twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to some person other than the Crown or the corporation sole;. whichever period first expires.
[112]
What are limitation periods under UK Law? | Weightmans
Claims in relation to awards in arbitration: 6 years · Claims in relation to debt arising under statute: 6 years · Claims in relation to recovery of land: 12 ...
[113]
What Are Limitation Periods in Canada? - RunSensible
Jun 27, 2024 · General civil claims must be filed within 2 years from the date of discovery, according to the Limitations of Actions Act. There is an ultimate ...
[114]
Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Australia - Khan Legal
The statute of limitations is the maximum timeframe for legal action after an event, promoting certainty and preventing stale claims.
[115]
Statute of Limitations in Australia - Lexology
Feb 3, 2021 · In NSW, the statute of limitations for summary offences is 6 months. In Victoria, it's 12 months. In Queensland, it's 12 months. In WA, it's 12 ...
[116]
649. Statute of Limitations Defenses - Department of Justice
A statute of limitations is a limit on prosecution if not started within a period after an offense. It's a cutoff point, not requiring a showing of prejudice.
[117]
Criminal Statutes of Limitations: 50-State Survey - Justia
Jul 5, 2023 · The survey below provides the main law outlining the criminal statute of limitations in each state, as well as the general periods of limitations for ...
[118]
State Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw
May 28, 2025 · Criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the type of crime a person commits. For example, when it comes to murder, there is no statute of limitations.
[119]
Statute of Limitations Reform for Child Abuse & Neglect | CHILD USA
Already, 33 U.S. States and Territories have windows or age limit revival laws for child sex abuse claims and new revival legislation is proposed each year.<|control11|><|separator|>
[120]
https://www.justia.com/injury/sexual-abuse/statute-of-limitations-reforms-in-child-sexual-abuse-cases/
[121]
Good News (Finally): Tort Reform Efforts Gaining Steam Across the ...
May 23, 2025 · For example, the 2023 Tort Reform Act in Florida halved the statute of limitations for negligence actions from four to two years and adopted a ...Missing: united | Show results with:united
[122]
Reforms Making It Easier to Sue Child Abusers Are Running into ...
Jun 6, 2023 · Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Laws Barring Cities from Passing Gun Safety Regulations. The case raised state constitutional challenges ...
[123]
Time Limits for Charges: State Criminal Statutes of Limitations
Aug 15, 2023 · Criminal statutes of limitations are time limits for charges, varying by state and crime type. Some crimes, like murder, have no time limit. ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[124]
State Civil Statutes of Limitations in Child Sexual Abuse Cases
Many states suspend statutes of limitation for civil actions while a person is a minor, and some states have additional extensions for cases involving child ...
[125]
Washington State Statute of Limitations for Child Sex Abuse
As a result of PCVA's efforts to pass HB 1618, there is no statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse that happens on or after June 6, 2024. That means ...Missing: level | Show results with:level
[126]
Where States Stand on Statute of Limitations Reform
Jun 8, 2025 · Northern Mariana Islands (NMI). Many of these laws are recent Michigan's one-year revival window opened in 2025, following the passage of its “ ...
[127]
Limitation—the principal limitation periods | Legal Guidance
Oct 15, 2025 · The Limitation Act 1980 sets out the time limits within which a claimant must bring a legal action, failing which the claim may become time- ...
[128]
Time limits for charging criminal offences - Brett Wilson
Jun 18, 2025 · Time limits for charging criminal offences ... Section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 specifies that a Magistrates' Court should not try ...
[129]
Time limits for commencing criminal proceedings | Legal Guidance
The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980) imposes time limits for commencing criminal proceedings which can only be heard in the magistrates' court.
[130]
Does Australia have a Statute of Limitations? - Lawpath
May 16, 2025 · These time limits vary by jurisdiction and case type, typically ranging from 1 to 6 years for civil claims. Statutes of limitations can apply to ...
[131]
[PDF] extinctive prescription in belgian private law - KU Leuven
We conclude that, in continental civil law, prescription has a substantive and not a procedural character, except maybe in the sense in which any legal rule or ...
[132]
Collas Crill explains… Prescription
Oct 18, 2022 · Unlike limitation, prescription is a complete defence to a claim. If a claim is prescribed it will be extinguished, such that it no longer ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[133]
Prescription - Max-EuP 2012
The general prescription period is three years. In principle, it starts to run when the relevant claim becomes due, ie when the debtor has to effect performance ...<|separator|>
[134]
The French Revision of Prescription: A Model for Louisiana?
Aug 25, 2010 · The general period is now shorter and unified (five years); there are new grounds for suspension (including codified contra non valentem); and a ...
[135]
German Civil Code BGB - Gesetze im Internet
The limitation period for claims of the kind referred to in section 197 (1) nos. 3 to 6 commences on the date on which the decision becomes final and binding, ...
[136]
Prescription | Commentaries on European Contract Laws
The period of prescription set out in Article 14:202 begins to run from the time when the judgment or arbitral award obtains the effect of res judicata, or the ...
[137]
Prescriptive Nature of Civil Law and its implications - ResearchGate
Apr 3, 2024 · prescription requires three significant requisites. Firstly, the asset has to be able to be prescribed. The property must be possessed ...
[138]
Time limits on procedures | European e-Justice Portal
Jan 12, 2022 · Under Article 2226 of the Civil Code, the starting point of the period of prescription of 10 years is the date on which the initial or ...
[139]
Alteration and Waiver of the Statute of Limitations Under French Law
Mar 11, 2016 · This quick overview examines the extent it is possible to alter or waive the statute of limitations under French law.
[140]
Limitation under German Law - Cross Channel Lawyers
Jun 19, 2013 · The standard limitation period is three years (section 195 BGB), thus significantly shorter than limitation according to English law.
[141]
Italy - Prescription in Tort Law
The civil code regulates the period of prescription: unless the law provides otherwise, the'ordinary'prescription period is ten years: rights not exercised ...Missing: continental | Show results with:continental
[142]
THE LIMITATION PERIOD APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS UNDER ...
Aug 4, 2014 · The limitation period (prescrizione in Italian) relevant to insurance and reinsurance contracts is 2 (two) years, as provided under Art. 2952 of the Italian ...
[143]
Statute of Limitations - Oliver & Partners
Feb 27, 2020 · In Italian civil law the limitation period sets out the length of time by which a claim can be brought in the ordinary courts. A claimant can ...
[144]
Prescription and Interruption Under Dutch Civil Law
These claims empower the creditor to initiate legal proceedings in a civil court to enforce obligations, such as payment or the transfer of property.
[145]
[PDF] Prescription in the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law
Jul 4, 2012 · In the following sections we will analyze the rules on prescription provided in Chapter 18, mainly the subject-matter of prescription (section 3) ...Missing: continental | Show results with:continental
[146]
What Is Limitation Period in China?-CTD 101 Series
Feb 17, 2023 · The usual limitation period is three years. The limitation period for a claim involving a contract for the international sale of goods and a ...
[147]
How not to miss the deadline? The statute of limitations in China - Blog
Oct 21, 2024 · The statute of limitations is three years, as regulated by Article 188(1) of the Civil Code of China, with exceptions provided by laws usually extending it.
[148]
Limitation Periods: Overview (China) - Practical Law
This Note sets out the limitation periods that apply to various types of claims and provides guidance on the practical considerations parties should consider in ...
[149]
[PDF] CY Japan Legal Update - The amendment of part of the Civil Code ...
The amendment standardizes prescription periods to 5 years (subjective) or 10 years (objective), with exceptions for periodic payments, torts, and harm to life ...
[150]
On the extinction prescription of the claim
In Japan, claims after April 1, 2020, can be extinguished after 5 or 10 years. Claims before March 31, 2020, are 10 years, with some exceptions like 5 years ...
[151]
[PDF] Law Reform on the Extinctive Prescription and Time Extension ...
“extinctive prescription” (“消消消効” in Japanese). The “period of exclusion” is a fixed period which cannot be suspended nor extended.
[152]
Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Korean Civil Law
Apr 3, 2024 · Periods of the Statute of Limitations · 1. General Claims – 10 Years · 2. Short-Term Statute of Limitations – 3 Years · 3. Short-Term Statute of ...Rights Subject to the Statute of... · Periods of the Statute of...
[153]
Supreme Court Rules that Statute of Limitations in Claim for ...
Jul 6, 2023 · Article 766 of the KCC provides that the statute of limitations for a tort claim shall be (i) three years from the date on which the victim ...
[154]
[PDF] Global Litigation Guide - DLA Piper Intelligence
Oct 18, 2023 · Under the Korean Civil Code, the general statute of limitations for civil claims is ten years. However, the Korean Commercial Code provides a ...
[155]
A new approach to applying limitation periods under the 2015 Civil ...
The limitation period for initiating a lawsuit to request the court to settle contract-related disputes or for reclaiming compensation is three years[38].
[156]
[PDF] Statutes of Limitation
THE conflicts law with respect to limitation of action by lapse of time has been discussed since the thirteenth century, and in this long history, ...
[157]
[PDF] A Typical Civil Law System of Latin American
In Venezuela, special exceptions to the plaintiff's complaint, such as res judicata and the statute of limitations, bar the plaintiff's claim, but in other ...
[158]
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-6&chapter=4&clang=_en
[159]
[PDF] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide;. (b) Crimes against humanity;. (c) ...
[160]
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court | OHCHR
Non-applicability of statute of limitations. The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations. Article 30.Article 5 - Crimes within the... · Article 7 - Crimes against... · Article 8 - War crimes
[161]
Statutes of Limitation - International Humanitarian Law Databases
Article 29 of the 1998 ICC Statute provides: “The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.”