Editing Statute of limitations (section)

===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>