Editing Statute of limitations

{{short description|Law which sets a maximum time for the initiation of legal proceedings}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2021}}
{{Criminal defenses}}
A '''statute of limitations''', known in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems as a '''prescriptive period''', is a law passed by a [[legislature|legislative body]] to set the maximum time after an event within which [[legal proceeding]]s may be initiated.<ref name="28USC2462">{{USC|28|2462}} ("Time for commencing proceedings")</ref><ref name=cal>{{cite web|title=Statute of Limitations|url=http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm|website=California Court Judicial Branch|publisher=Public Access Records|access-date=6 June 2014|ref=California Code of Civil Procedure sections 312–366}}</ref> In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both [[criminal law]] and civil law such as [[contract]] law and [[property law]], though often under different names and with varying details.

When the time which is specified in a statute of limitations runs out, a claim might no longer be filed or, if it is filed, it may be subject to dismissal if the defense against that claim is raised that the claim is time-barred as having been filed after the statutory limitations period.<ref name="aggravated felony">{{Cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ208/PLAW-104publ208.pdf#page=629 |title=Subtitle B—Criminal Alien Provisions, Sec. 321. Amended Definition of Aggravated Felony |page=629 |work=U.S. Congress |quote=(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to [[wrongdoing|actions taken]] on or after the date of the enactment of [[Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996|this Act]], regardless of when the [[conviction]] occurred....}}</ref>

When a statute of limitations expires in a [[Criminal procedure|criminal case]], the courts no longer have [[jurisdiction]]. In many jurisdictions with statutes of limitation there is no time limit for dealing with particularly serious crimes.

In civil law systems, such provisions are typically part of their [[civil code|civil]] and [[criminal code]]s. The [[cause of action]] dictates the statute of limitations, which can be reduced or extended in order to ensure a full and fair [[trial]].<ref name=":0">{{cite web|last1=Special Historic Session|title=Opening Remarks:HistoricSpecial section|url=http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/compsum2.pdf|website=www.courts.ca.gov|publisher=Supreme Court Of California|access-date=6 June 2014}}</ref> The intention of these laws is to facilitate resolution within a "reasonable" period of time.<ref>{{cite web|last1=California Courts|first1=Judicial Council|title=Public Access Records|url=http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-start.htm|website=California Courts|publisher=Rewriting Amendments|access-date=6 June 2014}}</ref> What amount of time is considered "reasonable" varies from country to country.<ref>{{cite web|title=State Statutes of Limitations|url=http://statelaws.findlaw.com/statutes-of-limitations.html|website=FindLaw|publisher=Thomson Reuters|access-date=4 May 2017}}</ref> In some countries, as in the US, it may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and state (or province, etc.) to state. Internationally, the statute of limitations may vary from one civil or criminal action to another. Some countries do not have a statute of limitations.

Analysis of a statute of limitations also requires the examination of any associated [[statute of repose]], [[tolling (law)|tolling provisions]], and exclusions.

==Applications==
[[Common law]] legal systems can include a statute specifying the length of time within which a claimant or prosecutor must file a case. In some jurisdictions (e.g., [[California]]),<ref name=cal/> a case cannot begin after the period specified, and courts have no jurisdiction over cases filed after the statute of limitations has expired. In some other jurisdictions (e.g., [[New South Wales]], Australia), a claim can be filed which may prove to have been brought outside the limitations period, but the court will retain jurisdiction in order to determine that issue, and the onus is on the defendant to plead it as part of their defense, or else the claim will not be statute barred.

Once they are filed, cases do not need to be resolved within the period specified in the statute of limitations.

==Purpose==
The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:<ref>''Halsbury's Laws of England'', 4th edition</ref>
* A [[plaintiff]] with a valid cause of action can pursue it with reasonable diligence.
* By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
* Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

In [[Classical Athens]], a five-year statute of limitations was established for almost all cases, exceptions being such as the prosecution of non-constitutional laws (which had no limitation). [[Demosthenes]] wrote that these statutes of limitations were adopted to control "[[sycophant]]s" (professional accusers).<ref name="Allen2003">{{cite book|last=Allen |first=Danielle S. |title=The World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lKW3yiINadEC&pg=PA154 |year=2003 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-09489-2 |page=154}}</ref>

The limitation period generally begins when the plaintiff's cause of action accrues, meaning the date upon which the plaintiff is first able to maintain the cause of action in court, or when the plaintiff first becomes aware of a previous injury (for example, [[occupational lung disease]]s such as [[asbestosis]]).

==Statute of repose==
{{Main|Statute of repose}}
A [[statute of repose]] limits the time within which an action may be brought based upon when a particular event occurred (such as the completion of construction of a building or the date of purchase of manufactured goods), and does not permit extensions. A statute of limitations is similar to a statute of repose but may be extended for a variety of reasons (such as the [[age of majority|minority]] of the victim).

For example, most U.S. jurisdictions have passed statutes of repose for construction defects.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tricker |first1=Edward H. |last2=Ebeleer |first2=Erin L. |last3=Kortum |first3=Christopher R. |title=Applicability of Statutes of Repose to Indemnity and Contribution Claims and 50 State Survey |journal=Journal of the American College of Construction Lawyers |date=2013 |volume=7 |issue=1 |page=341}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=MCL 600.5839|url=http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-600-5839|website=Michigan Legislature|publisher=State of Michigan|access-date=4 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.15|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=337.15|website=California Legislative Information|publisher=State of California|access-date=4 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c)|url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html|website=Online Sunshine|publisher=State of Florida|access-date=4 May 2017}}</ref> If a person receives an [[electric shock]] due to a wiring defect that resulted from the builder's negligence during construction of a building, the builder is potentially liable for damages if the suit is brought within the time period defined by the statute, normally starting with the date that construction is substantially completed. After the statutory time period has passed, without regard to the nature or degree of the builder's negligence or misconduct, the statute of repose presents an absolute defense to the claim.

Statutes of repose are sometimes controversial; manufacturers contend that they are necessary to avoid unfair litigation and encourage consumers to maintain their property. Alternatively, consumer advocates argue that they reduce incentives to manufacture durable products and disproportionately affect the [[poverty|poor]], because manufacturers will have less incentive to ensure low-cost or "bargain" products are manufactured to exacting safety standards.

==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.

==Prescription==
{{expand section|date=June 2015}}
{{See also|Extinctive prescription}}
In [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] countries, almost all lawsuits must be brought within a legally-determined period at the end of which the right of action is extinguished. This is known as liberative or extinctive prescription. Under Italian<ref>{{cite web|title=La prescrizione del reato dopo la ex-Cirielli|url=http://www.diritto-penale.it/la-prescrizione-del-reato.htm|work=Diritto Penale|access-date=5 June 2013}}</ref> and Romanian law,<ref>{{cite web|title=Codul Penal, Articolul 180 – Prescripția|url=http://legeaz.net/cod-penal-actualizat-2011/art-122-cpen|access-date=9 October 2013}}</ref> criminal trials must be ended within a time limit.

In criminal cases, the public prosecutor must lay charges within a time limit which varies by jurisdiction and varies based on the nature of the charge, whose directives vary from country to country. Over the last decade of the 20th century, many United States jurisdictions significantly lengthened the statute of limitations for sex offenses, particularly against children, as a response to research and popular belief that a variety of causes can delay the recognition and reporting of crimes of this nature.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}

Common triggers for suspending the prescription include a defendant's fugitive status or the commission of a new crime. In some jurisdictions, a criminal may be convicted [[trial in absentia|''in absentia'']].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ridley|first1=Yvonne|title=Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia|url=http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/|website=www.foreignpolicyjournal.com|publisher=Foreign Policy Journal|access-date=12 October 2014|date=12 May 2012}}</ref> Prescription should not be confused with the need to prosecute within "[[Laches (equity)|a reasonable delay]]" as obligated by the [[European Court of Human Rights]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-09-01 |title=Archived copy|url=https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-STD(2007)044-e |access-date=2022-10-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901085559/https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-STD(2007)044-e |archive-date=1 September 2022 }}</ref>

==Laws by region==

===International crimes===
Under [[international law]], [[genocide]], [[crimes against humanity]] and [[war crimes]] are usually not subject to the statute of limitations as codified in a number of multilateral [[Treaty|treaties]].<ref>Kohout, David, ''Statutory Limitation of Crimes under International Law: Lessons Taken from the Prosecution of Nazi Criminals in Germany after 1945 and the New Demjanjuk Case Law'', International Comparative Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, Issue 1 (2017), pp. 37-54.</ref> States [[Ratification|ratifying]] the [[Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity]] agree to disallow limitations claims for these crimes. According to Article 29 of the [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]], genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes "shall not be subject to any statute of limitations".

===Australia===
In Australia, there are no statutes of limitation in criminal proceedings if the maximum penalty that can be imposed for an offence committed by an individual includes imprisonment for more than 6 months. For civil matters, the statutes of limitation are prescribed by each state or territory jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite web |title=The statute of limitation |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/completed_inquiries/1999-02/child_migrat/report/e06 |website=Parliament of Australia |access-date=11 March 2021}}</ref>

===={{anchor|Crimes against children and people under guardianship in Victoria, Australia}}Victoria====
The Limitations Act of 1958 allows 12 years for victims of child abuse to make a claim, with age 37 the latest at which a claim can be made. The police submitted evidence<ref>{{cite web|title=Parliamentary Inquiry On The Handling Of Child Abuse By Religious And Other Non-Government Organisations|url=https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/limitation-actions-act-1958/107|access-date=31 July 2014|publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]]}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=November 2017}} to a commission, the Victorian Inquiry into Church and Institutional Child Abuse (in existence since 2012) indicating that it takes an average of 24 years for a victims of [[child sexual abuse]] to go to the police.<ref>{{cite web|title=Parliament of Victoria|url=https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/research/ageofinquiry/biogs/E000048b.htm|access-date=9 May 2013|work=Inquiry Into The Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organizations}}</ref> According to Attorney General Robert Clark, the government will remove statutes of limitations on criminal child abuse; victims of violent crime should be given additional time, as adults, to deal with the legal system.<ref>{{cite web|title=Victoria ends statutory time limit on historical child sex abuse cases|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/victoria-ends-statutory-time-limit-on-historical-child-sex-abuse-cases/story-e6frgczx-1226910540134|website=www.theaustralian.com.au|publisher=Australian Associated Press|access-date=12 October 2014}}</ref> Offenders of minors and the disabled have used the statute of limitations to avoid detection and prosecution, moving from state to state and country to country; an example which was presented to the Victorian Inquiry was the [[Congregation of Christian Brothers|Christian Brothers]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/Waller_Legal.pdf |title=Inquiry Into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations |publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]] |access-date=31 July 2014 }}</ref>

An argument for abolishing statutes of limitations for civil claims by minors and people under guardianship is ensuring that abuse of vulnerable people would be acknowledged by lawyers, police, organizations and governments, with enforceable penalties for organisations which have turned a blind eye in the past. [[Support group]]s such as [[Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests|SNAP]] Australia,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/SNAP.pdf |title=Waller Legal response |publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]] |access-date=31 July 2014 }}</ref> Care Leavers Australia Network<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/Care_Leavers_Australia_Network_CLAN.pdf |title=A Submission by Care Leavers Australia Network (CLAN) to the Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations |publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]] |access-date=31 July 2014 }}</ref> and Broken Rites have submitted evidence to the Victoria inquiry,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/Broken_Rites.pdf |title=Broken Rites response |publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]] |access-date=31 July 2014 }}</ref> and the [[Law Institute of Victoria]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/Law_Institute_of_Victoria.pdf |title=Inquiry Into the Processes by Which Religious and Other Non-government Organisations Respond to the Criminal Abuse of Children by Personnel Within Their Organisations |publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]] |access-date=31 July 2014 }}</ref> has advocated changes to the statute of limitations.

===={{anchor|Crimes against children and people under guardianship in Victoria, Australia}}Western Australia====
The Criminal Procedure Act 2004 outlines the statute of limitations, stating that a simple offense (an offence which can only be brought to a magistrate's court, and cannot include more than 12 months' imprisonment as the maximum penalty) shall have a statute of limitations of 12 months. However, all crimes (offences which can be brought to a district court or the supreme court) have no statute of limitations. Furthermore, a person may be charged with a simple offence after 12 months' if the person consents to such a charge being laid, or if that offence has a different statute of limitations as provided by law.<ref>[https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_45590.pdf/$FILE/Criminal%20Procedure%20Act%202004%20-%20%5B03-m0-01%5D.pdf?OpenElement Criminal Procedure Act 2004] Retrieved 11 March 2023</ref>

===Canada===
[[summary offence|Summary conviction offences]] have a limitation period of 12 months.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Code|url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-125.html#1203021|publisher=Government of Canada|access-date=29 November 2021|location=Section 786(2)}}</ref>

Indictable (serious) offences such as fraud, serious theft, murder, kidnapping, arson, bribery, perjury, do not have a limitation period. A defendant can be charged at any future date.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/criminal-procedure |title=Criminal Procedure |encyclopedia=[[The Canadian Encyclopedia]] |access-date=1 September 2019}}</ref> In sexual abuse cases in particular, men and women have been charged and convicted more than 40 years after the abuse had been committed.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/judge-sentences-80-year-old-woman-to-1-year-in-prison-for-sex-crimes-1.4806066 |title=Judge sentences 80-year-old woman to 1 year in prison for sex crimes |work=CTV News |date=10 February 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.lequotidien.com/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/un-homme-de-94-ans-evite-la-prison-pour-des-viols-commis-il-y-a-50-ans-21017eb4aa9d78a9a8aa5e5b119cc8a2 |title=Un homme de 94 ans évite la prison pour des viols commis il y a 50 ans |work=Le Quotidien |language=fr |date=6 September 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-actor-edgar-fruitier-guilty-of-indecent-assaults-committed-in-the-70s |title=Quebec actor Edgar Fruitier guilty of indecent assaults committed in the '70s |work=Montreal Gazette |date=22 July 2020}}</ref>

Civil law limitations vary by province.<ref>{{cite web |title=Limitation Periods in Canada's Provinces and Territories |url=http://www.fenninsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Limitation.pdf |website=fenninsurance.com |publisher=Olga Gil Research Services |access-date=30 October 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111248/http://www.fenninsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Limitation.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> In Ontario, this is governed by the ''Limitations Act, 2002''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02l24_e.htm |title=Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B |publisher=E-laws.gov.on.ca |date= 24 July 2014 |access-date=31 July 2014}}</ref>

===Finland===
In Finland, the authority of a prosecuting official to bring charges for a crime expires after a set period of time has passed since the act. This period is 20, 10, 5, or 2, years depending on the seriousness of the offence. Offences punishable with life imprisonment, such as murder and treason, do not expire. Sexual offences committed against minors do not expire before the victim reaches 23 or 28 years of age, depending on the nature of the offence.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}}

===Germany===
In Germany, the statute of limitations on crimes varies by type of crime, with the highest statute of limitation being 30 years for [[voluntary manslaughter]] ({{lang|de|Totschlag}}).  Murder, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the [[crime of aggression]] have no statute of limitations.

In Germany, the crime of murder used to have a 20-year statute of limitations. In 1969, the statute of limitations for murder was extended from 20 to 30 years. The limitations were abolished altogether in 1979, in order to prevent Nazi criminals from avoiding criminal liability.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Monson |first=Robert A. |date=1982 |title=The West German Statute of Limitations on Murder: A Political, Legal, and Historical Exposition |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/840011 |journal=The American Journal of Comparative Law |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=605–625 |doi=10.2307/840011 |issn=0002-919X|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

For most other criminal offences, the statute of limitations is set by Section 78(3) of the Criminal Code ({{lang|de|[[Strafgesetzbuch]]}}) as follows:
* 30 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum [[term of imprisonment]] for life;
* 20 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years but not by imprisonment for life;
* 10 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 5 years but no more than 10 years;
* 5 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 1 year but no more than 5 years;
* 3 years for all other offences.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html|title=GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE|website=www.gesetze-im-internet.de|language=en|access-date=3 August 2018}}</ref>

In the civil code ({{lang|de|[[Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]]}}), the regular statute of limitations is three years (plus the time until the end of the calendar year); however, different terms between two and thirty years may apply in specific situations. For example, the term is only two years for claims for alleged defects of purchased goods, but 30 years for claims resulting from a court judgement (such as awarded damages).

===India===
The statute of limitations in India is defined by the Limitations Act, 1963.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://comtax.up.nic.in/Miscellaneous%20Act/limitation-act-1963.pdf |title=Microsoft Word - LIMITATION ACT |access-date=5 August 2019}}</ref>

The statute of limitations for criminal offences is governed by Sec. 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

===Indonesia===
The statutes of limitations in Indonesia are defined by articles 136-139 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code, and varies by type of crimes and ages of the perpetrators. According to article 136 of the Criminal Code, as well as article 7 and article 46 of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts, the limits are as follows:<ref name="indonesian criminal code">{{cite web|url=https://jdih.setkab.go.id/PUUdoc/176887/UU_Nomor_1_Tahun_2023.pdf|title=Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Pasal 136-139 dan Penjelasan atas Pasal 136-139|trans-title= Law No. 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code. Articles 136-139 and Explanation of Articles 136-139|pages=49-50,272-273|language=id|publisher=Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia|access-date=2024-06-30|archive-date=2023-10-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027083355/https://jdih.setkab.go.id/PUUdoc/176887/UU_Nomor_1_Tahun_2023.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* For crimes committed by adults:
** 3 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 1 year imprisonment and/or by only a maximum criminal fine of category III (Rp50,000,000).
** 6 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 3 years imprisonment.
** 12 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 7 years imprisonment.
** 18 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 15 years imprisonment.
** 20 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, life imprisonment, or capital punishment.
* For crimes committed by children:
** 1 year for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 1 year imprisonment and/or by only a maximum criminal fine of category III (Rp50,000,000).
** 2 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 3 years imprisonment.
** 4 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 7 years imprisonment.
** 6 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 15 years imprisonment.
** around 6.6 years for crimes which are punishable by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, life imprisonment, or capital punishment.
* No limit for genocide and crimes against humanity.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://jdih.setkab.go.id/PUUdoc/7228/UU-26-2000.pdf|title=Undang-Undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2000 tentang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia. Pasal 7 dan Pasal 46|trans-title= Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts. Article 7 and Article 46|pages=4,17|language=id|publisher=Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia|access-date=2024-06-30|archive-date=2024-06-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240630125329/https://jdih.setkab.go.id/PUUdoc/7228/UU-26-2000.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

For most crimes, the prescriptive period begins from the following day after the crime is committed. However, exceptions are made for crimes of forgery, currency destruction, abduction, and hostage-taking. For the first two, the period is calculated from the following day after the forged goods or damaged currency is used, while for crimes of abduction and hostage-taking, it is calculated from the following day after the victim is released or dies as a direct result of the crime.<ref name="indonesian criminal code" />

===Ireland===
{{Main|Statute of limitations in Ireland}}

=== New Zealand ===
The statutes of limitations in New Zealand are defined by section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. For offences committed by body corporates, the statutes of limitation are determined as if they were a natural person. The limits are as follows:<ref>{{Cite web|title=Criminal Procedure Act 2011 No 81 (as at 03 November 2021), Public Act 25 Time for filing charging document – New Zealand Legislation|url=https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360067.html|access-date=2021-11-26|website=www.legislation.govt.nz}}</ref>
* 6 months for offences which are punishable by a maximum of 3 months imprisonment or a $7,500 fine.
* 12 months for offences which are punishable by a maximum of 6 months imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.
* 5 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum of 3 years imprisonment, although this can be extended with the consent of the [[Solicitor-General of New Zealand|Solicitor-General]].
* No limit for offences which are punishable by more than 3 years imprisonment.

===Norway===
The statute of limitations on murder was abolished by a change in law on 1 July 2014, causing any murders committed after 1 July 1989 to have no statute of limitations. This led to the national police force implementing a new investigation group for old cases called the "Cold Case" group. The law was also changed to let cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage, human trafficking and genital mutilation to count from the day the victim turns 18 years old. Cases where the statute of limitations have already passed can not be extended due to the constitution preventing it.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/stortinget-fjerner-foreldelsesfristen-1.285858 |title=Stortinget fjerner foreldelsesfristen |language=no |publisher=Dagsavisen |date=16 June 2014 |access-date=5 June 2017}}</ref>

=== Philippines ===
In the Philippines, the [[Revised Penal Code]] has different limitation periods, based on the penalty of the crime:<ref>{{Cite web|last=Marcelo|first=Simeon V.|author-link=Simeon V. Marcelo|date=1 April 2020|title=Litigation and enforcement in the Philippines: overview |url=https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/?productid=PLCCA&lr=0&culture=en-CA&returnto=https%3a%2f%2fca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2fCosi%2fSignOn%3fredirectTo%3d%252f9-621-3675%253ftransitionType%253dDefault%2526contextData%253d(sc.Default)%2526firstPage%253dtrue&tracetoken=1230201401190mKqHeXW3oss2695LrtFvXST7VVCuHhReYtpExsqlgSdiEmMaIwuJpo6q_buMSYG6_xkCpiGXxx7oWmU-sJkChjXJsYNduhtVlFsP5F68CMKB4bPvnpMDIw3bzMQV_YWIPmSU4HW0iwjuJe1etJph399H0bCM7F_TO8437jH-regm7_dkhVKjNO_hbVxmmXu4KbtqJlysIOENkwXUUKQ4u-J_3OZrVUkQm-H4W3DqSMNF7Kz2326KnWYGH6dv81CqeSLZd0wLDpaAq83WnAGAT4MRSgOp19VEU7EF76X4Pk3L-Ve7sMkX62nE5kk28WiEzUaPhw67lm14Hafb8AQtSlkrJqYAkLl_WEhFQsecANkIoink96IuZh24f7RZxWlF |access-date=30 December 2020 |website=signon.thomsonreuters.com}}</ref>
* ''[[Reclusión perpetua]]'' or ''reclusión temporal'' (imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 40 years): 20 years
* Other afflictive penalties (imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years): 15 years
* Correctional penalties: 10 years, except:
** ''Arresto mayor'' (imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months): 5 years
** Libel and other similar offenses: 1 year
** Oral defamation and slander: 6 months
* Light penalties (imprisonment of 1 day to 30 days): 2 months

Other special laws have their own limitation periods. For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the limitation period won't run if the offender is outside the Philippines, while for those punished under other laws, it does. Municipal ordinances have a limitation period of 2 months.

===South Korea===
In July 2015, the National Assembly abolished a 25-year limit on first degree murder; it had previously been extended from 15 to 25 years in December 2007.<ref>{{Cite web|date=25 July 2015|title='Cold cases' may walk again as South Korea removes statute of limitations on murder|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1843628/south-korea-removes-statute-limitations-murder|access-date=15 September 2020|website=South China Morning Post|language=en}}</ref>

=== Turkey ===

Turkish Code of Obligations sets the general limitation period to ten years, which applies where the law does not provide a specific limitation period.<ref>{{cite web |last=Baysal |first=Pelin |title=Litigation and enforcement in Turkey: overview |url=https://content.next.westlaw.com/3-505-9003?__lrTS=20200727094801030&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 |website=Westlaw |access-date=28 December 2020 |date=3 January 2019}}</ref>

There is no statute of limitations for [[sexual offense]]s committed against [[minor (law)|minor]]s, however, under both the Turkish Penal Code (article 99) and [[Turkish civil code (1926)|Turkish Civil Code]] (Law No. 2827).<ref name="kayahan">{{cite web |last1=Cantekin |first1=Kayahan |title=Turkey: Constitutional Court Finds Violation of Constitutional Rights in Courts' Failure to Decide on Abortion Authorization |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/turkey-constitutional-court-finds-violation-of-constitutional-rights-in-courts-failure-to-decide-on-abortion-authorization-in-pregnancy-resulting-from-sexual-assault/ |website=www.loc.gov |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=28 December 2020 |date=30 September 2020}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
{{Main|Limitation periods in the United Kingdom|Limitation Act 1980}}

The United Kingdom has no statute of limitations for criminal offences beyond minor [[summary offences]] (offences tried exclusively in the [[Magistrates' court (England and Wales)|magistrates' court]]s);<ref name=els/> the [[Magistrates' Courts Act 1980]] requires that criminal proceedings for summary offences be brought within six months. To obtain a conviction in "some road traffic offences" (e.g. speeding), the [[Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]] requires that the driver must be notified within 14 days of the offence of the intention to prosecute.<ref name=els>{{cite book | last=Rutherford | first=Helen | last2=Kotecha | first2=Birju | last3=Macfarlane | first3=Angela | title=English Legal System|edition=5th|doi=10.1093/he/9780192858856.001.0001|chapter=Chapter 12. The criminal process: Pre-trial and trial|chapter-url=https://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/display/10.1093/he/9780192858856.001.0001/he-9780192858856-chapter-12|publisher=Oxford University Press| year=2022 | isbn=978-0-19-285885-6}}</ref>

For civil claims, the period of validity varies depending on the type of claim. For example, a claim (debt) from a simple contract can no longer be pursued after six years.

===United States===
In the United States, statutes of limitations may apply in [[United States criminal procedure|criminal procedures]] and civil lawsuits.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statute of limitations |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_limitations |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |access-date=31 March 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=650. Length of Limitations Period |url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-650-length-limitations-period |website=www.justice.gov |access-date=31 March 2022 |language=en |date=19 February 2015}}</ref> Statutes of limitations vary significantly among U.S. jurisdictions.

A [[list of federal agencies in the United States|government agency]] is permitted by the [[United States Congress|Congress]] to create under [[Code of Federal Regulations|federal regulations]] its own statute of limitations.<ref name="8CFR1003.2">See, e.g., [https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1003/subpart-A/section-1003.2#p-1003.2 8 C.F.R. 1003.2] ("(a) ''General''. The [[Board of Immigration Appeals|Board]] may at any time reopen or reconsider a case in which it has rendered a decision on its own motion solely in order to correct a ministerial mistake or typographical error in that decision or to reissue the decision to correct a defect in service.... The time and numerical limitations set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall not apply to a motion to reopen proceedings:...
<br />(v) For which a three-member panel of the Board agrees that reopening is warranted when the following circumstances are present, provided that a respondent may file only one motion to reopen pursuant to this paragraph (c)(3): (A) A material change in fact or law underlying a removability ground or grounds specified in section 212 or 237 of the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952|Act]] that occurred after the entry of an administratively final order that [[wikt:vitiate#English|vitiates]] all grounds of removability applicable to the alien; and (B) The movant exercised [[diligence]] in pursuing the motion to reopen;
<br />(vi) Filed based on specific allegations, supported by evidence, that the respondent is a [[citizenship of the United States|United States citizen]] '''''or''''' [[United States nationality law|national]]....") (emphasis added)</ref>

====Retroactive extensions====
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] held in 2003 in ''[[Stogner v. California]]'' by a 5–4 majority that [[California]]'s retroactive extension of the criminal statute of limitations for [[sexual offense]]s committed against [[minor (law)|minor]]s was an unconstitutional [[ex post facto law]].<ref name=Stogner>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/539/607/ |title=Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) |page=233 |date=June 26, 2003 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School}}
* {{cite web |title=Stogner v. California |publisher=oyez.org |access-date=2007-12-30 |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1757}}</ref>

====Civil statutes====
A civil statute of limitations applies to a non-criminal legal action, including a [[tort]] or [[contract]] case. If the statute of limitations expires before a lawsuit is filed, the defendant may raise the statute of limitations as an [[affirmative defense]] to seek dismissal of the claim. The exact time period depends on both the state and the type of claim (contract claim, personal injury, fraud etc.). Most fall in the range of one to ten years, with two to three years being most common.

====Criminal statutes====
A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense.<ref>{{cite web |last=Doyle |first=Charles |title=Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=18 March 2018|date=14 November 2017}}</ref> If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge.

=====Initiation of charges=====
The statute of limitations in a criminal case only runs until a criminal charge is filed and a warrant issued, even if the defendant is a fugitive.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Grossman|first1=Jonathan|title=Speedy Trial and the Statute of Limitations |url=http://www.sdap.org/downloads/research/criminal/jg14.pdf|website=Sixth District Appellate Program|access-date=6 December 2017|date=2014}}</ref> When the identity of a defendant is not known, some jurisdictions provide mechanisms to initiate charges and thus stop the statute of limitations from running. For example, some states allow an indictment of a [[John Doe]] defendant based upon a DNA profile derived from evidence obtained through a criminal investigation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ullmer|first1=Frank B.|title=Using DNA Profiles to Obtain John Doe Arrest Warrants and Indictments |journal=Washington & Lee Law Review|date=2001|volume=58|page=1585|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/waslee58&div=52&id=&page=|access-date=6 December 2017}}</ref> Although rare, a [[grand jury]] can issue an [[indictment]] [[trial in absentia|in absentia]] for high-profile crimes to get around an upcoming statute of limitations deadline. One example is the [[skyjacking]] of Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305 by [[D. B. Cooper]] in 1971. The identity of D. B. Cooper remains unknown, and he was indicted under the name "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper."<ref>{{cite web |authorlink=Bryan Denson |last=Denson |first=Bryan |date=24 November 1996 |title=D.B. Cooper legend lives. |url=http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/08/25_years_later_db_cooper_legend_lives_the_oregonian_archives.html |work=Oregon Live archive |accessdate=6 March 2011}}</ref>

====={{anchor|Heinous crimes in the United States}}Heinous crimes=====
Crimes which are widely considered heinous have no statute of limitations. Although there is usually no statute of limitations for murder (particularly [[first-degree murder]]), judges have been known to dismiss murder charges in [[cold case]]s if they feel that the delay violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sixth Amendment - Limited Protection Against Excessive Prosecutorial Delay|url=http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6346&context=jclc|website=Northwestern University School of Law|publisher=The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology|access-date=12 October 2014}}</ref> For example, waiting many years for an [[alibi]] witness to die before commencing a murder trial would be unconstitutional.{{citation needed|date=May 2019}}

=====Military law=====
Under the U.S. [[Uniform Code of Military Justice]] (UCMJ), [[desertion]] has no statute of limitations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/airman-who-went-missing-in-1977-found-living-double-life-in-florida|title=Airman who went missing in 1977 found living double life in Florida|date=17 October 2017|website=Fox News}}</ref>

'''Maritime Injury Law'''

Under [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/30106 46 U.S. Code § 30106], "Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose." There are some exceptions to this, primarily with regard to Jones Act cases filed against the government, in which case the statute of limitations can be less than 2 years.<ref>{{cite web |title=33 U.S. Code § 913 - Filing of claims |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/913 |website=Legal Information Institute |publisher=Cornell Law School |access-date=31 December 2018}}</ref>

=====State laws=====
{{incomplete table|date=September 2022}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! State
! Misdemeanor
! Felony
! Notes
|-
|[[Connecticut]]
|1 year<ref name="legreport">{{cite web |last1=Reinhart |first1=Christopher |title=Statute of Limitations for Prosecutions |url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/pdf/2015-R-0098.pdf |website=Office of Legislative Research Research Report |publisher=State of Connecticut |access-date=22 May 2020 |date=6 March 2015}}</ref>
|
* Terrorism not resulting in death: 30 years
* Manslaughter: 25 years
* Rape: 15 years
* Violent felonies: 10 years
* Nonviolent felonies: 5 years
* Nonviolent felonies committed by a minor: 2 years{{Citation needed|date=September 2021}}
|A bill was proposed to abolish the statute of limitations for most sex offenses, but it was not submitted for a vote in the [[Connecticut State Senate|state senate]]. Efforts continue to pass legislation to extend the limitations period for the prosecution of sex offenses.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Krasselt |first1=Kaitlyn |title=Legislature unlikely to eliminate civil statute of limitations for sex abuse |url=https://www.ctpost.com/politics/article/Legislature-unlikely-to-eliminate-civil-statute-15072024.php |access-date=22 May 2020 |publisher=Connecticut Post |date=20 February 2020}}</ref>
|-
|[[Michigan]]
|6 years
|
* Murder: No limits
* Kidnapping, extortion, assault with intent or conspiracy to murder: 10 years
* Sexual conduct, violence or abuse:
** If DNA evidence is present but offender has not been identified: No limits
** If DNA evidence is present and offender identified or when the victim turns 21, whichever is earlier: 10 years
** Against a minor (below the age of 18): 10 years
* Others: 6 years{{Citation needed|date=September 2022}}
|Statute of limitation tolls if defendant is not a resident and did not usually and publicly reside in the state. See [http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-767-24 MCL 767.24]
|-
|[[North Carolina]]
|2 years
|No limits
|No statute of limitations for "malicious misdemeanors", per [https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_15.pdf NCGS §15-1]
|-
|[[Utah]]
|
|
* Sexual conduct, violence, or abuse against a minor (below the age of 18): 10 years after the victim becomes 18 years old<ref>{{Cite web |title=Utah Code Section 76-1-301.1 |url=https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter1/76-1-S301.1.html?v=C76-1-S301.1_2020051220200512 |access-date=2022-12-26 |website=le.utah.gov}}</ref>
* Murder, rape, manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping: No limits<ref>{{Cite web |title=Utah Code Section 76-1-301 |url=https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter1/76-1-S301.html?v=C76-1-S301_2022050420220504 |access-date=2022-12-26 |website=le.utah.gov}}</ref>
|
|}

====Exceptions====
Pursuant to the legal doctrine of tolling, U.S. jurisdictions recognize exceptions to statutes of limitation that may allow for the prosecution of a crime or civil lawsuit even after the statute of limitations would otherwise have expired.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fischer |first1=James M. |title=The Limits of Statutes of Limitation |journal=Southwestern University Law Review |date=1986 |volume=16 |page=1}}</ref> Some states stop the clock for a suspect who is not residing within the state.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Charles |first1=Simon |last2=Dawes |first2=C.G. |title=Extradition: The Statute of Limitations is Tolled By Constructive Flight |journal=Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law |date=1978 |volume=10 |page=521}}</ref>

The right to [[Speedy Trial Clause|speedy trial]] may potentially derail a felony prosecution after many years have passed, including in states that have no statute of limitations for the charged offense.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schneider |first1=Alan L |title=The Right to a Speedy Trial |journal=Stanford Law Review |date=1967 |volume=20 |page=476}}</ref>

=====Fraud on the court=====<!-- [[Fraud on the court]] redirects to here -->
{{Further|Judicial misconduct}}
When an [[officer of the court]] is found to have fraudulently presented facts to impair the court's impartial performance of its legal task, the act (known as ''fraud upon the court'') is not subject to a statute of limitation: "This concept that the inherent power of federal courts to vacate a fraudulently obtained judgment—even years after the judgment was entered—has long been recognized by the Supreme Court."<ref name=Bressman>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f3d/874/142/12270065/#p149 |title=In re Bressman, 874 F.3d 142 |page=482 |date=October 18, 2017 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref> Fraud on the court can be done many ways and in any court. One of which can be "where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."<ref name=Bulloch>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f2d/763/1115/373266/#p1121 |title=Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115 |page=1121 |date=May 22, 1985 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref> Officer of the court includes any [[judge]], [[law clerk]], [[court clerk]], [[lawyer]], investigator, [[probation officer]], [[referee]], [[legal guardian]], parenting-time expeditor, mediator, evaluator, administrator, special appointee, and/or anyone else whose influence is part of the judicial mechanism.<ref name=DOJ>{{cite web |title=Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law |url=https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law |date=May 31, 2021 |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) |quote=Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.}}</ref><ref name=FBI>{{Cite web |url=https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes |title=Federal Civil Rights Statutes |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)}}</ref>

====={{anchor|Continuing violations doctrine}}Continuing-violations doctrine=====
In [[tort]] law, if any person or entity commits a series of illegal acts against another person or entity (or in criminal law if a defendant commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series.<ref>{{cite web |title=Continuing Violation Doctrine Law and Legal Definition |url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/continuing-violation-doctrine/ |access-date=24 January 2019 |publisher=definitions.uslegal.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f3d/366/238/#p246 |title=Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238 |page=246 |date=April 30, 2004 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School |quote=Traditionally, in tort law, 'proximate cause' has been defined as a person's wrongful conduct which is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another.}}</ref> The entire [[chain of events]] can be tolled if the violations were continuing. Courts have explained that the continuing-violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [[discrimination|discriminatory]] acts which have been occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident of discrimination occurred within the limitations period."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f3d/200/570/#p573 |title=Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 200 F.3d 570 |page=573 |date=January 7, 2000 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref> Whether the continuing-violations doctrine applies to a particular violation is subject to judicial discretion; it was said to apply to [[copyright infringement]] in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f2d/712/1112/#p1119 |title=Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112 |page=573 |date=July 7, 1983 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref> but not in the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f2d/970/1043/#p1049 |title=Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 |pages=1049–50 |date=July 13, 1992 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://gonzagalawreview.org/files/2011/02/Graham.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=13 August 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118075119/http://gonzagalawreview.org/files/2011/02/Graham.pdf |archive-date=18 January 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

==See also==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Portal|Law}}
* [[Adverse possession]]
* [[Might makes right]]
* [[Miscarriage of justice]]
* [[Justice delayed is justice denied]]
* [[Nullum tempus occurrit regi]]
* [[Tort reform]]

<!-- ==Notes==
{{notelist}} -->

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Miscarriage of justice}}
{{Criminal procedure (investigation)}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Statute Of Limitations}}
[[Category:Civil procedure]]
[[Category:Criminal procedure]]
[[Category:Statutory law]]
[[Category:Statutes of limitations| ]]