Editing Statute of limitations (section)

==Tolling and the discovery rule==
{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=August 2015}}
{{Further|Tolling (law)|discovery (law)}}
Many jurisdictions [[tolling (law)|toll]] or suspend the limitation period in [[exceptional circumstances]] such as if the aggrieved person ([[plaintiff]], [[appellant]] or [[petitioner]]) was a minor, or has filed a [[bankruptcy]] proceeding. In those instances, the running of limitations is tolled or paused, until the condition ends. [[Equitable tolling]] may also be applied if an individual may intimidate a moving party into not reporting or has been promised a suspended period.

The statute of limitations may begin when the harmful event, such as fraud or injury, occurs or it may begin when the harmful event is discovered. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has described the "standard rule" of when the time begins as "when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action." The rule has existed since the 1830s.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17933875001306187435&scilh=0 Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission].</ref> A "discovery rule" applies in other cases (including [[medical malpractice]]), or a similar effect may be applied by tolling.

According to U.S. district judge [[Sean J. McLaughlin]], the discovery rule does not apply to [[mass media]] such as newspapers and the [[Internet]]; the statute of limitations begins to run at the date of publication.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f-supp-2d/730/376/ |title=Wolk v. Olson, 730 F. Supp. 2d 376 |page=|date=August 2, 2010 |work=U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |publisher=Harvard Law School |quote=The issue before the Court is whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations in a mass-media defamation case. The Court holds that it would not.}}</ref> In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in ''[[Gabelli v. SEC]]'' that the discovery rule does not apply to [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]'s investment-advisor-fraud lawsuits since one of the purposes of the agency is to root out fraud.<ref>Macy J. (2013). [http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160227 Opinion analysis: That which does not kill the SEC may make the agency stronger]. [[SCOTUSblog]].</ref>

In private civil matters, the limitation period may generally be shortened or lengthened by agreement of the parties. Under the [[Uniform Commercial Code]], the parties to a contract for sale of goods may reduce the limitation period to one year but not extend it.

Limitation periods that are known as [[laches (equity)|laches]] may apply in situations of [[equity (law)|equity]]; a judge will not issue an [[injunction]] if the requesting party waited too long to ask for it. Such periods are subject to broad [[judicial discretion]].

For [[US military]] cases, the [[Uniform Code of Military Justice]] (UCMJ) states that all charges except those facing [[court-martial]] on a [[capital punishment|capital charge]] have a five-year statute of limitations. If the charges are dropped in all UCMJ proceedings except those headed for general court-martial, they may be reinstated, once only, for six months.