Statutes of Limitations
A statute of limitations is just a filing deadline.
10. Statutes of Limitations
Civil claims have a deadline by which they must be filed. Statutes of limitations set out these deadlines.
- Civil claims (federal and state) have statutes of limitations.
- The statute of limitations imposes a deadline only on the time during which a claim may be filed. A timely filed claim may be resolved after the deadline has passed.
- The limitations period varies by type of claim and jurisdiction. The statute of limitations for a contract claim in State A may differ from the statute of limitations for a tort claim in that state. Similarly, the statute of limitations for a contract claim in State B may differ from the statute in State A.
- Lawyers need to research the statute of limitations for each claim they file. The Nevada FLE does not permit research, so questions will identify the relevant limitations period for questions involving this concept.
- In addition to researching the statute of limitations for each claim, lawyers must ascertain how the jurisdiction counts time. For example, does the day on which the claim arose count? [Most states follow the “anniversary” rule for counting, and the Nevada FLE uses that rule.
- Under this rule, the day that a cause of action arose does not count towards the limitations period. The day on which the claim is filed does count.
- Thus a claim filed on the anniversary of the day when the claim arose will be timely (if filed within the proper number of years). For example, if a claim arose on March 1, 2022, and a three-year statute of limitations applies, the claim may be filed as late as March 1, 2025.]
- Statutes of limitations may be tolled: Time that passes while the statute is tolled does not count towards the limitations period.
- States toll statutes of limitations while the plaintiff is a minor. Most states end tolling for minority when the plaintiff turns eighteen.
- States also toll statutes of limitations while a claim was hidden from the plaintiff and could not be discovered. This type of tolling, known as the “discovery rule,” ends when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered existence of the claim.
- [To invoke the discovery rule, potential plaintiff s must exercise reasonable diligence to discover a potential claim.]
- The Nevada FLE does not require test-takers to recall the length of any particular statute of limitations, counting rules [other than the anniversary rule explained above, or tolling rules other than the ones outlined above.]
A statute of limitations is a filing deadline only. On this exam the question hands you the period, and your job is to count it under the anniversary rule and check for the two in-scope tolling doctrines.
A statute of limitations is just a filing deadline, and that is the first place students overthink it. The statute limits one thing only: the window during which a claim may be filed. It says nothing about when the case has to end. So a claim filed one day before the deadline is timely, and the lawsuit can grind on for years past that date without any limitations problem.
The length of the period varies by the kind of claim and by the jurisdiction, and on this exam you never have to remember any particular length. The question will hand you the period. Your job is to count, and counting is where the precision lives. The Nevada FLE uses the anniversary rule.
- 1The day the claim arose does not count.
- 2The day the claim is filed does count.
- 3So a claim that arose on a given date can be filed as late as the same calendar date the right number of years later, the anniversary, and still be timely.
Then there is tolling, which pauses the clock. Time that passes while the statute is tolled simply does not count toward the period. Two tolling situations are in scope and only two.
- 1Minority: the clock is tolled while the plaintiff is a minor, and most states end that tolling when the plaintiff turns eighteen.
- 2Discovery rule: the clock is tolled while a claim is hidden and could not be discovered, and that tolling ends when the plaintiff discovered or, by exercising reasonable diligence, should have discovered the claim.
That diligence requirement is the catch in the discovery rule. A plaintiff who sat on obvious warning signs cannot claim the clock was paused, because they should have discovered the claim.
An answer that says a claim is too late because the case would not be resolved before the deadline is testing whether you confused the filing deadline with a resolution deadline.
Anything outside these two tolling doctrines, and any counting rule other than the anniversary rule, is off the exam.
"Deadline to file, not to finish."
The statute limits only when you must file; a timely claim can be resolved long after the deadline.
Counting is the anniversary rule: the day the claim arose does not count, the day you file does count, so the anniversary date is the last timely day.
Tolling pauses the clock and only two kinds are tested: minority (ends at eighteen) and the discovery rule (clock paused while the claim is hidden, ends when the plaintiff knew or with reasonable diligence should have known).
A plaintiff who ignored obvious red flags loses the discovery rule, because they should have discovered it.
A neighbor's tree falls and damages a homeowner's fence. The claim arises on June 10, 2021. A three-year statute of limitations applies, and the jurisdiction uses the anniversary rule. The homeowner files suit on June 10, 2024.
Suppose the homeowner did not discover the damage at all because the fallen tree was hidden behind dense brush, and a reasonable inspection would not have revealed it. The discovery rule tolls the clock until the homeowner discovered or should have discovered the harm. But flip it again: if the damage was in plain view and the homeowner simply never looked, the discovery rule does not help, because the homeowner should have discovered it through reasonable diligence.
A "too late" answer resting on how long the lawsuit takes or that the case resolves after the deadline.
The statute limits only the time to file; a timely filed claim may be resolved after the deadline.An option that miscounts the anniversary rule, by counting the accrual day or treating the anniversary filing as one day late.
The accrual day does not count and the filing day does, so a claim filed on the anniversary date is timely.A discovery-rule option that tolls until actual discovery and drops the reasonable-diligence requirement.
The discovery rule ends when the plaintiff discovered or, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered the claim.A minority-tolling option that ends tolling at the wrong trigger, such as continuing past eighteen or ending on a parent's knowledge.
Most states end minority tolling when the plaintiff turns eighteen.the stem gives you a date the claim arose, a stated limitations period, and a filing date, and then tempts you with one of three things: a long-running lawsuit, a plaintiff who was a minor, or a plaintiff who learned of the harm late.
separate the filing deadline from the resolution of the case; how long the suit takes is irrelevant.
count by the anniversary rule: do not count the day the claim arose, do count the filing day, and the anniversary date is the last timely day.
if a minor or a hidden injury appears, pause the clock only under the two in-scope tolling doctrines: minority tolling ends at eighteen, and the discovery rule runs only while the plaintiff neither knew nor, with reasonable diligence, should have known of the claim.
A plaintiff who ignored obvious warning signs gets no discovery-rule tolling.
A customer's claim against a repair shop arose on April 5, 2021. A two-year statute of limitations applies, and the jurisdiction follows the anniversary rule for counting time. The customer filed the complaint on April 5, 2023. The repair shop moved to dismiss, arguing that two full years had elapsed and the claim was filed too late.
Is the customer's claim likely to be timely?
A tenant filed a claim against a landlord within the applicable limitations period, and no party disputes that the filing was on time. The litigation proved complex, and by the time the trial concluded and judgment entered, the original filing deadline had long since passed. The landlord argued that because the case was resolved after the deadline, the judgment could not stand.
Is the landlord's argument likely to succeed?
A patient suffered harm from a procedure, but the injury was concealed and could not have been detected through a reasonable examination at the time. The patient discovered the harm years later and promptly filed suit. The applicable jurisdiction recognizes the discovery rule. The defendant argued that the limitations clock ran from the date of the procedure regardless of when the harm came to light.
Is the patient's claim likely to be timely under the discovery rule?
A bank statement and a series of letters plainly revealed that an investor had been overcharged, and the documents sat in the investor's own files from the start. The investor never read them and did not file suit until well after the limitations period would otherwise have expired. The jurisdiction recognizes the discovery rule. The investor argued the clock should be tolled because the overcharge was not actually noticed until much later.
Is the investor likely to benefit from the discovery rule?
A claim for an injury to a child arose when the child was ten years old, and the jurisdiction tolls the limitations period during a plaintiff's minority. No other tolling doctrine applies. The defendant argued that because several years passed while the child was a minor, the claim must already be barred.
Is the limitations clock likely to have run during the period of the child's minority?